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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

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 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s National Fertilizers Ltd ITA No. 401/2023 and CM No. 37496/2023. 6. However

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

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 AY 2010-11 got missed due to the reason for this omission\nare as follows:-oversight which

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 in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section 253

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 in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section 253

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

253, subsection (3) of section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income Tax Act such as sections 274, 273, etc. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as well

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

253(2) copy of the minutes are referred but same were not enclosed. It was further stated that as decision cited by the ld CIT DR equally applied 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 to the revenue where there is a gross negligence or inaction

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

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

6 ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar as evident from table above, the time limit of filing of appeal expired on 15.01.2023 u/s 249(2), In view of the above facts the assessee has submit that the delay was unintentional, for bona fide reasons and due to the circumstances we, therefore pray that the delay in filing the appeal

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

6 ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar as evident from table above, the time limit of filing of appeal expired on 15.01.2023 u/s 249(2), In view of the above facts the assessee has submit that the delay was unintentional, for bona fide reasons and due to the circumstances we, therefore pray that the delay in filing the appeal

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

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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay 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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES 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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before