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.

condoned. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee has a strong case on merits and it was only due to the negligence of the tax counsel that there was non-compliance before the Ld. AO and also carelessness in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR drew our attention to the assessee

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

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

condonation of delay in filing the return and thereafter benefit of section 11(2) would be granted to the assessee. 7 Loyola High School 14

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 80HHC brought out by Taxation Laws Amendment Bill of 2005.” 4. Against the aforesaid orders of AO the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. There was a delay of 2380 days in filing the appeals before CIT(A). The same was explained by the assessee in an application for condonation of delay as follows :- “The appellant-assessee received

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

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

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

14. Your petitioner states that the last date to file this appeal was 01.10.2022 and as such, there is a total delay of 247 days in filing the instant appeal. 15. Your petitioner respectfully submits that exceptional clause i.e. maintaining of Foreign Bank Accounts involved in the matter. That apart, a substantial amount of tax effect is also involved