PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7.8 As regards

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

5) of section 11 of the Act. 17.3 From the aforesaid Circular it would be clear that in the genuine case of belated application in Form No. 10, the delay may be condone

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

11(1) of the Act. In respect of all the years that are before us in which the question of application of income outside India arises, such time limit has already expired and we are informed by the learned Sr. Standing Counsel that there is no provision to condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

11(1) of the Act. In respect of all the years that are before us in which the question of application of income outside India arises, such time limit has already expired and we are informed by the learned Sr. Standing Counsel that there is no provision to condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish to discourage the tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter. The lackadaisical propensity for delay exhibited in a non- challant way needs to be curbed; as in the facts and circumstances of the present case before

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay in submitting the application was also filed. The returns of income would also appear to have been filed claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of the entire income of the assessee – society on the ground that it had applied for registration under section 12A. 7. Subsequently, the DIT (Exemptions) seems to have

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

condonation of the delay in submitting the application was also filed. The returns of income would also appear to have been filed claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of the entire income of the assessee – society on the ground that it had applied for registration under section 12A. 7. Subsequently, the DIT (Exemptions) seems to have

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

condonation of the delay in submitting the application was also filed. The returns of income would also appear to have been filed claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of the entire income of the assessee – society on the ground that it had applied for registration under section 12A. 7. Subsequently, the DIT (Exemptions) seems to have

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n3) That as per the provisions of section 253(3A) of the Act, the\nlimitation for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal expire\non 21.02.2015 and therefore, the present accompanying\nappeal is delayed by 1021 days.\n\n4) The matter regarding filing of appeal in the impugned case\nfor

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of delay override the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”). The position was reiterated in State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6 SCC 239 and also in OMP No.389/2012 Page 4 of 8 Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. Vs. Custodian, (2004) 11

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of delay override the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”). The position was reiterated in State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6 SCC 239 and also in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. Vs. Custodian, (2004) 11

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 5 of the Limitation Act it is relevant to bear in mind that the expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to a right in the hands of a decree holder to treat the decree as binding. The other consideration is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown the direction is given to the court