AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 14.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 29.05.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “A. Grounds concerning dismissal

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 13.03.2025. 1.1 This case has a unique set of facts which deserve to be recapitulated for appreciating the action of Ld. CIT(A), who is seen to have dismissed the appeal before

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal againstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of the Income

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 :-

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We find that the ld. CIT(A), in this case dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the delay of 540 days in filing of the appeal is not explained. The assessee submitted that he was not properly advised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ESPLANADE AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. ALERT CONSULTANTS AND CREDIT PVT LTD, R N MUKHERJEE ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay. The Income Tax Officer, being a Government Officer, should have avoided to give a incorrect affidavit before this Tribunal. 6. The appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. However, we are also surprised as to why the revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The concluding

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 delay in filing the appeal\nagainstthe order dated December 31, 2009, passed under section 250 of\nthe Income

SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40 (4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

Delay under section 250 of the income Tax Act 1961 in filing of Form No. 36 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as act) the central Board of Direct taxes (CBDT) authorized the commissioners of Income Tax to admit application of condonation

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21st November, 2024 in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay

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

250(6) of the Act which is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference: 6)The order of the [* * *] [ Omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f. 1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 39 and Schedule V (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).] disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) IX, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to hold that the benefit of Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall not be available as the requirements of Section

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.

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would

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.

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) (h) In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice; it would

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

SANTANU DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 11.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.09.2022. I.T.A. No.: 2582/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Santanu Das. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal

AVISHI PROJECTS LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE. , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 551 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit which reads as under:- “I, Aditya Banka