BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

9. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions P Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana in ITA No. 92/Asr/2020 dated 23.12.2021 where the Bench has condoned the delay of 665 days wherein the Appellant has proved its bonafide, when the erstwhile AR has delayed despite

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

condonation of delay and most of the cases have arisen under section 5 of I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 9

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

condonation of delay and most of the cases have arisen under section 5 of I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 9

M.K HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

9 years is a huge delay for adjudicating the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). But the assessee also submitted the “reasonable cause” for filing the appeal in delay. In fact, the revenue also not able to submit proof for any other mode of service of intimation to the assessee. However, through the E- mail there is huge confusion

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

condonation of delay.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as\nunder:-\n\"The appellant is an individual and has filed its\nreturn\nof income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised\nreturn) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order

VOLUNTARY MEDCARE SOCIETY,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS) WARD , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13(9

MEASAGE GRAM SEWA AND VIKLANG SHAYTA SANSTHA REGD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

9) of the Act, to remove defects in the return and so the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 11 of the Act. Even otherwise, the AO had powers to condone the delay

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condonation of delay. The AR also referred the Judgement of Ram Nath Sao and Ors v/s Gobardhan Sao & Ors-AIR 1201 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "sufficient cause" in meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act or order 22 Rule 9

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condonation of delay. The AR also referred the Judgement of Ram Nath Sao and Ors v/s Gobardhan Sao & Ors-AIR 1201 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "sufficient cause" in meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act or order 22 Rule 9

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condonation of delay. The AR also referred the Judgement of Ram Nath Sao and Ors v/s Gobardhan Sao & Ors-AIR 1201 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "sufficient cause" in meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act or order 22 Rule 9

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condonation of delay. The AR also referred the Judgement of Ram Nath Sao and Ors v/s Gobardhan Sao & Ors-AIR 1201 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "sufficient cause" in meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act or order 22 Rule 9

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

9. Thereafter the assessee approached the undersigned to look Into the matter and after searching the portal of the assessee It came to notice that CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 10. That since the order passed by CIT(A) u/s 250 was not received by the assessee as a result the assessee

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years