BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

28 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 132Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai132Delhi113Hyderabad70Ahmedabad69Mumbai51Jaipur49Bangalore38Amritsar34Visakhapatnam31Kolkata28Chandigarh27Pune18Karnataka11Guwahati10Surat8Rajkot8Lucknow6Nagpur6Patna6Dehradun5Raipur5Telangana5SC3Orissa2Indore2Cuttack2Allahabad1Calcutta1Cochin1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar26Section 13224Search & Seizure22Section 26321Section 153A17Section 132A16Addition to Income16Section 268A13Section 148

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the following grounds which is extracted below: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 1318
Section 1448
Condonation of Delay8

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 900/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 897/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing on merits. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect involved in three appeals of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 1279/Kol/2024, and ITA No. 1282/Kol/2024 is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeal by the revenue before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee had filed its original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2010 declaring income of Nil. Later, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961, was conducted on 30.08.2012 on the assessee as a part

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action

BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMEL. vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1034/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMAL vs. PCIT-5,KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1035/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1032/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1030/KOL/2023[743122]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which