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

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

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

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

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

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

5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contents of the letter requesting for condonation of delay. We are aware that the power to condone the appeal must be exercised liberally in favour of the applicant, especially where the appellant is a Government body and the exchequer is involved. For this, we draw support from the decision

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

5 and 6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) -Assessment year 2016- 17 - Assessee, a charitable trust

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

5 and 6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) -Assessment year 2016- 17 - Assessee, a charitable trust

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

5) of section 253 of the Act, itself says that "if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause is there sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal" Therefore, in the present case, there is sufficient cause for not present the appeal within time. November The Appellant was suffering from hyperactivity

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

5) of section 253 of the Act, itself says that "if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause is there sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal" Therefore, in the present case, there is sufficient cause for not present the appeal within time. November The Appellant was suffering from hyperactivity

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

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

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

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

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

condoning the delay in filing these appeals as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

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

condoning the delay in filing these appeals as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

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, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay

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

253 ITR 798) the Apex Court clearly laid down that the distinction must be made between a case where delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 6. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. 9. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5

EWA EMPOWERED WOMENS ASSOCIATION,DELHI vs. WARD EXEMPT 1(1), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4434/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 बनाम Ewa Empowered Womens Association, Cit (Exemptions), 291, 1St Floor, Block S, Greater Kailash 1, Vs. Delhi. South Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aafce6594H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where sufficient cause is shown. • The Delhi

RRB ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 15, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing this appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5