DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

119(2)(b) should be construed liberally, High Court) particularly in matters of entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

119(2)(b) should be construed liberally, High Court) particularly in matters of entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to by the assessee. The circular No.7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued under Section 119 of the Act could not be, therefore said to have taken away the appellate remedy. 5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119(2)(b) passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts and in law while charging interest u/s 234A/B/C of Rs. 117392/-. 3. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all ground of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under sec. 12AA