SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- EXEMPT 1(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4944/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2023-24) Indian Institute Of Foreign Deputy Commissioner Of Trade, Income Tax, B-21, Iift Bhawan, Qutab Vs Circle Exempt 1(1), Institutional Area, Shaheed Delhi, Jeet Singh Marg, Civic Centre, New Delhi- New Delhi-110016. 110002. Pan- Aaati0438E Assessee Revenue

section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi vide his order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 18.12.2025 has condoned the aforesaid delay

M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the said application is pending

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the said application is pending

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the said application is pending

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the said application is pending

CHURCH'S AUXILIARY FOR SOCIAL ACTION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Condonation of delay as per section 80G(5C)(v) of the IT Act. Consequently, the amount claimed as per Form 10AA was treated as deemed income of the society for A.Y 2004-05. 5. Subsequently, the assesses filed the application u/s 119(2

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay as an oversight by their Chartered I.T.A.Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 Accountant/Auditor, condonation application under section 119(2)(b) was rejected

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay as an oversight by their Chartered I.T.A.Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 Accountant/Auditor, condonation application under section 119(2)(b) was rejected

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

delay u/s 119(2)(b). 2. Further, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ahmedabad) in the case of Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer [2022] 143 taxmann.com 418 (Ahmedabad- ITATO [22-07-2022) has held as under: Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. 1961- Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation