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

21. That takes us to the question as to whether in condoning the delay the Tribunal committed any error of law or illegality. There is a wealth of judicial literature on the subject of condonation of delay and most of the cases have arisen under section

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

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 35D of the Act appeal was filed. 2.3 Consequently, the appellant appealed before Ld. CIT-(A) on 07- 11-2020 and hence, the delay of 4 years and 3 months (1537 days). The period of delay is tabulated as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Date Period of delay 1 Date of receipt of Intimation | 24-07-2016 issued

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. D.K. JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period prescribed, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. The Court observed that whereas in the former

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after inordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with endorsement at the bottom of appeal that the limitation expires on 21-02-2015 and the copy of the order was communicated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

M/S. WORLDWIDE REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before