INDIAN EX-SERVICE LEAGUE(W.B.),KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Ex-Services Ito (Exemption), Ward- League, (W.B.) 1(1), Kolkata. Cp/7/3, Block-Cp, Vs. Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091. Pan: Aaati 3629 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 17.09.2021 U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Cit(A) Fails To Understand That The Tax Is Payable On Income Not On Gross Receipts Thus Disallowance Of Revenue Expenditures Pent Is Unlawful, Whimsical Based On Surmises & Thus Order Passed By The Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

section 139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose off by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay in submission of Form 10 before the ld. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata which was rejected by the ld. CIT vide order under section 119(2

M/S. JEEVANDARSHI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

119(2)(b) of the Act allow the CBDT to admit an application beyond the time prescribed under Section 139 and Section 239 of the said Act. In the present case we find that the Respondents have failed to exercise such powers to condone the delay

SEARSALE SRI RAM KRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1),EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condonation of delay. The assessee has moved an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as provided

SEARSALE SRI RAMKRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1), EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condonation of delay. The assessee has moved an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as provided

M/S. ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the\nAct. Section 119(2) reads as follows:\nSection 119(2

SRI KRISHNENDU CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

condone the delay and to proceed hearing of the appeal. 5. The first issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid as the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. 6. At the outset, we find that assessee

SRIRAMPUR NITYANANDA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,TAMLUK, PURBA MEDNIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3),, HALDIA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay under section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act. That due to non appearance the arguments were

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection of the assessee for hearing. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: Assessment Year:2012-13 6. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for . At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. Vide issue raised in ground no. 2, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Act which is invalid, ab-initio void, ultra vires and ex-facie nullity in the eyes

AL AMEEN ISLAMICK TRUST,HOWRAH vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and decide on merits and satisfy himself

SALT LAKE SANSKRITIK SANSAD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad,…………...……Appellant Sector-1, Trust Bhawan, Ca-49, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Aaets4162K] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,................Respondent Circle Cpc, Bengaluru, Prestige Alpha, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Post, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100, Karnataka Appearances By: Shri N. Kausic, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay lies with the Income Tax Officer under section 119(2) of the Act. 2 Salt Lake Sanskritik

ARVIND KUMAR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2499/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Acwpj 1463 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 187 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Has Also Not Objected To Condone The Delay. Considering The Prayer Of The Assessee In The Application & The Sufficient Reasons For Delay, I Condone The Delay Of 187 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 29.09.2018, Whcih Is Shown At Page 63 Of The Paper Book Is Not As Per The Format Prescribed By The Cbdt. The Said Notice Reads As Follows:-

condone the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 29.09.2018, whcih is shown at page 63 of the paper book is not as per the format prescribed by the CBDT

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay. 5. The assessee has raised legal issue before us that the assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri instead of jurisdiction with ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and has the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Instruction No. 1/2011{F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)}. 6. Facts

BANSAL FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2235/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Bansal Foundation,………………………...……Appellant White House, 3Rd Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aadtb0630J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for the assessment year 2016-17 may be condoned under section 119(2

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. ITA No. 937/K/18 ITA No. 938/K/18 ITA No. 1439/K/18 A.Y 2010­11 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd 3 6. We shall take summarized and concise ground No.1, which reads as follows: (1). Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 937/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11 and Ground