SWARUP KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swarup Kumar Saha…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 40C/1, Jessore Road Barasat Kolkata – 700 124 [Pan : Algps 1418 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), Kolkata.………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Provash Roy, Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 139(1) has occurred, that delay is to be condoned by the authorities and benefit of accumulation is to be granted. 13

QUALITY BAGS EXPORTERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

section could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs. 10 Crore. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be detrimental to any of the assesses. 11. The Appellant initiated action to file the appeal with Tribunal believing that the petition

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condonation of\ndelay.\n16. Your petitioner states that the said tax consultant immediately gave\ndirections to the said Tax Advocate to draft the application for\ncondonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary\ndocuments and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant\nvide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised\nthat

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

13. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” 8.1 From the above facts and discussion and in the light of section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

SANTANU DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

ARVIND METALS & MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

condone delay would result in foreclosing a suit or from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the word “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jam v. Kuntal

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Bishnupur Public Education Institute rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:- “A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appellant/petitioner most humbly submits that due to unavoidable situation and circumstances, which were beyond the control of Your petitioner, there is a delay in filing the instant appeal. Such delay is unintentional and such delay may be condoned by this Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata and the instant appeal may be heard

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appellant/petitioner most humbly submits that due to unavoidable situation and circumstances, which were beyond the control of Your petitioner, there is a delay in filing the instant appeal. Such delay is unintentional and such delay may be condoned by this Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata and the instant appeal may be heard