DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J. These are nine appeals, all filed by Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short). Two substantial 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 2 of 22 questions of law were framed by this Court

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi that "accordingly, appellant's all grounds of appeal are dismissed as not maintainable and thereby appellant two appeals

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi that "accordingly, appellant's all grounds of appeal are dismissed as not maintainable and thereby appellant two appeals

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

condonation of delay the reasons and the epidemic conditions prevailing and the Supreme Court ruling for the said period and the facts on record and without giving an adequate opportunity, done hastily and by not observing the principles of natural justice

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoning the delay is also erroneous illegal and against the principals of Natural Justice and Equity and the well settled

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoning the delay is also erroneous illegal and against the principals of Natural Justice and Equity and the well settled

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

nature, which is\nused as working capital by the company except an amount of\nRs.41.02 crores. As the assessee has utilized 92% of receipts on\naccount of public issue on working capital and hence 92% of\nRs.38 crores of share issue expenditure would be revenue\nexpenditure and balance 8% of share issue expenditure which\nwas spent on capital expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

nature, which is\nused as working capital by the company except an amount of\nRs.41.02 crores. As the assessee has utilised 92% of receipts on\naccount of public issue on working capital and hence 92% of\nRs.38 crores of share issue expenditure would be revenue\nexpenditure and balance 8% of share issue expenditure which\nwas spent on capital expenditure

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

justice, technical ground of delay should not be allowed to stand in its way. (Emphasis supplied) 9. In light of above facts & compliant nature of the Appellant and the judicial precedents relied upon, it is most humbly requested that delay in the Appellant's case may kindly be condoned

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

natural justice. 12. It is evident from the contents of the impugned order as well as the assessment order that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

justice. ” 8. In the light of the aforesaid observations of Hon’ ble Bombay High Court and in the absence of any material placed on record by Revenue to demonstrate that the delay in filing the appeal was with mala-fide intention, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal by the Assessee cannot be considered

MANASBAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the issue related to delay in filing the appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee itself has been pursuing rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee would be at liberty to file a proper application seeking condonation

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the issue related to delay in filing the appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee itself has been pursuing rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee would be at liberty to file a proper application seeking condonation

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the issue related to delay in filing the appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee itself has been pursuing rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee would be at liberty to file a proper application seeking condonation

RISHABH MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the issue related to delay in filing the appeal. Considering the fact that the assessee itself has been pursuing rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee would be at liberty to file a proper application seeking condonation