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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

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

delay of more than 10 years. Right to appeal under the Income Tax Act is a statutory right circumscribed by conditions prescribed in the statute. Section 253(1) permits the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal against orders specified therein. Sub-section (3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days

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

delay of more than 10 years. Right to appeal under the Income Tax Act is a statutory right circumscribed by conditions prescribed in the statute. Section 253(1) permits the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal against orders specified therein. Sub-section (3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days

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

delay of more than 10 years. Right to appeal under the Income Tax Act is a statutory right circumscribed by conditions prescribed in the statute. Section 253(1) permits the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal against orders specified therein. Sub-section (3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days

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

delay of more than 10 years. Right to appeal under the Income Tax Act is a statutory right circumscribed by conditions prescribed in the statute. Section 253(1) permits the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal against orders specified therein. Sub-section (3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days

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

sections": [ "144C(5)", "40(a)(i)", "9(1)(vii)(b)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "144C", "253(2A)", "253(3A)", "253(5)", "14" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue was for a \"sufficient cause\" to warrant condonation

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

section 253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days. 1

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

section 253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days. 1

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

1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order

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

1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

ASHIAN NEEDLES PVT LTD

1) of Section 253 gives an authority to the assessee to prefer an appeal against the order inter alia passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Similarly, sub-section (2) of Section 253 authorize an appeal to be filed by the Commissioner if he is aggrieved with the order inter alia passed by the CIT (A). The impugned appeals

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

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing both appeals as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting these appeals within the prescribed time and therefore, these appeals are hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 10. We have perused various columns of ITR-7 of the relevant year and have found that

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

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing both appeals as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting these appeals within the prescribed time and therefore, these appeals are hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 10. We have perused various columns of ITR-7 of the relevant year and have found that

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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

1. That the said company is non functional and non operational for the number of years due to heavy losses. 2. That there is no employee or any regular professional to look after the day to day matters. 3. That the assessment order was not delivered at the registered office of the company hence the same was not received late

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

253(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT R/W SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL 1