THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed as under: “Condonation of delay In this case, it is found that there is a delay of about 5 months in filing of the Appeal. As per Form 35 filed by the appellant on 27/09/2022, the date of service of Notice of Demand is mentioned as 18/09/2022, whereas

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2022-23 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The assessee Society is an educational Institute solely for educational purpose. It is also registered under Section 12AB of the Act vide Registration Order dated

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged the action of the AO in levying interest amounting

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

condoning the delay. It was accordingly submitted that the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 4. In the instant case, I find that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has submitted reason for the delayed filing of the said appeal by stating that she being

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 263 after a delay of 1740 days contending that there was a delay in filing appeal as income tax practitioner of assessee did not advise assessee to file appeal against order passed by Principal Commissioner under bona fide belief that order passed by Principal Commissioner was not appealable, mistake of lawyer or accountant was a good reason for condonation

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250 of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, finding that the society failed to provide sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under Section 249(3). Despite the society's affidavit from its Secretary explaining the delay due to lack of proper legal guidance

SAUGAAT,AMBALA CANTT vs. ITO, WARD 4, AMBALA CANTT. (ASSESSMENT UNIT), AMBALA CANTT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058169892(1) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 148(A)(b)/148 are illegal, bad in lad and void ab initio. 3 That

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

250 of the Act and as such, a delay of 247 days ( 248 days as per Assessee) was caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay in filing is appeal is inadvertent, bonafide and a request was made to condone the aforesaid delay. 3. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives we have gone

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for condoning the delay and that the assessee was a willful offender since it remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In his rejoinder the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the then counsel

MOHINDER PAL SUTHAR,SIRSA vs. ITO, W-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the

Bench: Proceeding To Address The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Is Relevant To First Address The Delay Of 210

4 of 9 affidavit for condonation of delay dated 24.05.2019. Hence, the present affidavit. Therefore, it is requested to allow the accompanied application by condoning a delay of 210 days upto date in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.” (emphasis supplied) 4.2. Accordingly, in the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, it is seen that the assessee has proceeded

ANITA RANI W/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH,CHEEKA GUHLA, KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

4. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 250 days, supported by an application explaining that the delay was solely due to the negligence/illness of the erstwhile Chartered Accountant, which prevented timely filing. These facts are clearly recorded in Form 35 and in the condonation application reproduced

ARVIND KUMAR JOLLY,AMBALA vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 56 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4

SUKHDEV SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1142/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sukhdev Singh, The Ito, Village-Dheerpur, Ward No. 3, Po-Khanpur Koliyan, Vs Kurukshetra. Tehsil-Thanesar, Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Etgps8505H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The solitary substantial grievance on merit is that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.55,55,000/-. At the time of hearing, we have passed the following interim order : “The Assessee

M/S FATEH SOFTECH PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: The Hon Tale Itat On 13.01.2020. The Present Appeal Is Against The Appellate Order Dtd. 31.10.2019Passed U/S 250(6) By Worthy Cit(A). The Registry Of The Hon’Ble Bench Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Facts Behind The Said Delay & Our Prayer Praying For Condonation Of The Same Are As Under:

delay is condoned. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 10428/17-18 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances

SH. SANDEEP BHARDWAJ,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Addressing The Same, It Is Necessary To Note That The Assessee Has Moved An Adjournment Application On Record. The Ld. Ar At The Outset Requested For Permission To Withdraw The Application Stating That The Request For

4 of 6 5. That in the meanwhile we have shifted our office premises from Chandigarh to Mohali. 6. That in the process of shifting inadvertently the appellate order handed over by the assessee got misplaced, thereby causing delay in filing appeal. 7. That in this way there has been a delay of 148 days, however, there had been

CLEVUS LIFESCIENCES ,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Clevus Lifesciences, Vs. The Dcit, Khasra No. 501, Vill. Kamli, Circle, Sector-6, Parwanoo, Distt-Solan(Hp). Parwanoo. Pan No. : Aaffc4920L (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. Ordered accordingly. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court before the parties at the time of hearing itself and the parties consequently were directed to argue thereafter the appeal on merits. 3. It was a common stand of the parties before the Bench that the point at issue raised by the assessee in the present proceedings