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

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

5 of this case, instead of remanding the matter back to the CBDT, we direct that the delay of one day in filing of the return be condoned." 26. We also noticed that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CBDT v. Regen Infrastructure & Services (P.) Ltd., [75 taxmann.com 135] condoned delay of one day in uploading

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRI HOSPITAL LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that of assessee’s CO is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JB of the Act. It immediately filed the CO on the advice of the consultant when it was received. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances we find that there is nothing to suggest any deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal to the Hon’ble ITAT. The assessee had nothing to gain by delaying the application. The assessee filed

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. ITA No.1987/Kol/2013-M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 4. As far as the issue raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal is concerned, the same relates to eligibility of the assessee’s for exemption u/s 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of a sum of Rs.10

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

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)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner will while

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

139 of the Act stating that delay in furnishing return of income was caused due to delay in getting the accounts audited under respective State Laws. 4 In order to mitigate genuine hardship in cases referred to in para 3, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby directs that the Chief Commissioners

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

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 139(1), the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti 11. Relying upon both these decisions, we allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 12. The Registry has pointed out a delay of 95 days in filing these appeals, but actually there