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

139(1). This delay stands condoned by the above Circular. Therefore, it is to be treated in time. This exhibits that both conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, accumulation is to be allowed. In view of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit under section

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. 4. It was the submission that the only issue in the appeal is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has been denied the benefit of deduction

NITDAA FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishranitdaa Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Fe 261, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, Vs West Bengal -700106 10B, Middleton Row, (Pan: Aadtn2308K) West Bengal - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. 7. The said legal position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit in filing the application in Form No. 10A and/or 10AB as under. a. The CBDT vide Circular No. 12 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 in exercise of its power

PRAMEYA FOUNDATION,KAIKHALI BOINCHBERIA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraprameya Foundation, Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, Vill- Boinchberia, Po- Kaikhali Income Tax Office, 10B, Falta Boinchberia, Falta South, Vs Middleton Road, 24 Parganas - 743503 Kolkata - 700071 (Pan: Aadtp0927G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. Although the dates for filing various forms were extended by the CBDT, however the date for filing application for approval under section 80G was extended up to 30 th September, 2022 and, therefore, the application in Form No. 10AB u/s 80G(5)(iii) had not been filed in time

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation under the\nexisting provisions of the Act. The CCSIT/DGsIT shall examine the following while\ndeciding such applications-\n(i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the\ncontrol of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence

AGARWAL SABHA ,ULUBARI, GUWAHATI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraagarwal Sabha, Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, H.No. 92A, Saratkunj 10B, Middleton Road, Apartment, Mill Road, Ulubari, Vs Kolkata - 700071 Guwahati (Pan: Aalaa5893M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay 4 Agarwal Sabha in filing application in Form No. 10AB. Although the dates for filing various forms were extended by the CBDT, however the date for filing application for approval under section 80G was extended up to 30th September, 2022 and, therefore, the application in Form No. 10AB u/s 80G(5)(iii) had not been filed

BHABAR BHABANI MANDIR PUBLIC TRUST,WEST BENGAL BURDWAN vs. CIT EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishrabhabar Bhabani Mandir Public Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, Trust, Income Tax Office, 10B, Kalna Saspur Kalna, Purba Vs Middleton Road, Bardhaman - 713409 Kolkata - 700071 (Pan: Aadtb5275B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. Although the dates for filing various forms were extended by the CBDT, however the date for filing application for approval under section 80G was extended up to 30th September, 2022 and, therefore, the application in Form No. 10AB u/s 80G(5)(iii) had not been filed in time

HAYDEN HALT INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2024-25

5)(iii) of the Act was mandatory and the Ld. CIT(E) had no power to condone the delay in filing the application in Form No. 10AB. He analysed the various circulars issued by the CBDT to conclude that last date for filing Form 10AB for registration under Section 10(23C)/12A/80G falling on or before 29.09.2022 was extended

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

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

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

139(4) of the Income Tax Act. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the reason for belated filing of return of income was beyond the control of the society, the return was filed in delay due to ignorance and delay in statutory audit. Auditor of statutory audit is allotted from cooperative audit directorate Government

SATREENA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned. Aggrieved by such order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has moved the appeal before the Tribunal. According to assessee, the return under section 139(1) was already filed on 06.07.2017 while method of filing Form 67 was prescribed only on 19.09.2017. Thus it was beyond the control of assessee to file Form 67 before filing return under section

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 the delay in filing Form\n10-IC.\n8.2 The appellant further argues that the proviso to section 115BAA\nclearly states that once the assessee has opted to pay tax under section\n115BAA in any previous year, this option cannot be withdrawn in\nsubsequent years. Consequently, the intimation order passed under\nsection 143(1) is deemed invalid

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

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 arc authorized to admit and dispose off by 31.03.2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner will while entertaining such belated

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. 14. The only effective issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order of AO wherein the AO has denied the benefit of exemption claimed

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 under section 119(2)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form no. 10 and Form No. 9A for AY 2016- 17 1.Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘Act’) the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust or institution in respect of income derived from property

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred