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

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

9. That the said Advocate had filed my appeal on 10.12.2022 with a delay of 436 days due to his illness. 10. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 10.1.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 had restored its order dated 23.3.2020 relaxing limitation and held

DCIT, CIR.-8(2), KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Garg

delay on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the Revenue is being disposed off on merit. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of rendering of Logistic Services. The return of income for the year under consideration

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

9 I.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024, I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017&I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Advocate on April 25, 2024 to review the papers and revise the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. After making the necessary changes and adding the necessary documents, the instant petition and the appeal were filed on May 1, 2024 after a delay

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

9 I.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024, I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017&I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Advocate on April 25, 2024 to review the papers and revise the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. After making the necessary changes and adding the necessary documents, the instant petition and the appeal were filed on May 1, 2024 after a delay

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

13, 2021 to\ninform this Hon'ble Tribunal about the same. Copy of the email dated\nJanuary 12, 2021 is annexed hereto and marked \"J\".\n19. Your petitioner states that at the time of the hearing the Hon'ble\nTribunal asked the Tax Advocate to inform the Assessee or its\nrepresentative of thenext date of hearing and allowed

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 of 7 years 6 months 18 days in filing the appeal before

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 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable

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 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jam v. Kuntal Kumari (A/R 1969 SC 575 (1969) 1 SCR 1006) and State of WB v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366: A/R 1972 SC 749) 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, three

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

delay in filing electronically Form No. 10 should be condoned u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act. 13. Similarly, on the facts of the case as stated above, benefit of accumulation of corpus fund as contemplated in clause (a) of sec.11(2) of the Act (refer Ground No.6 of this appeal) is also available to the appellant-society

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal together with a delay condonation petition as the assessee has got a good case and fair chance of succeeding in appeal. In support of this, the ld AR relied on the following decisions for condonation of delay :- (a) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case

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

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