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

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay, it is mentioned in column 15 that “since I had the first available remedy to make a Rectification application u/s. 154 against the order u/s. 143(1) and thereon the rectification order has been received on 23.02.2023.” since the assessee had filed the rectification application which was disallowed it had the option to file an appeal

THE SALESIAN SISTERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay in filing appeal before him in spite of the reasonable cause shown. I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹ 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have reversed the action of the A.O. in assessing the income of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2390/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1995-96)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue reads as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by holding that this case falls under purview of Section 153(2A) and not under section

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

264 ITR 186 (Cal) wherein it is held that,\n3\nITA No.2238/KOL/2024\n\"... what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and\nin section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would\nbe required to explain why the appeal and/or application could\nnot be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and\nexplain the delay

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. .For that the Assessment order U/s.144 of the Act is illegal & void. 2. For that the Appeal Order dated 21/07/2023 was passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC without considering the Grounds of Appeal and facts

SAIKAT CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO 61(1), KOLKATA

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

condonation of delay,\nassessee points out that were pursuing a remedy\nbefore another appellate forum which ought to be\nexcluded, said averment is sufficient to invoke section\n14 of the Limitation Act or principles laid down\ntherein. Provisions of the Limitation Act dealing with\nsuits, applications and appeals apply only to Courts\nand not to Tribunal other quasi-judicial authorities

ENHANCE AESTHETIC & COSMETIC STUDIO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetic Studio Pvt. Ltd.………………….…….……Appellant 3C-12, Loudon Street, Kol- 17. [Pan: Aacce9208R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bishnu Kant Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 250 on 22/08/2024 7) That there is a delay of 296 days for which we are filing this condonation petition. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is because of a genuine reasons that is illness of my CA and also my faith in him that he is handling the matter. 9) That I Manoj Khanna director

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

condon the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. “In the facts and in the circumstances and on points of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO highlighted that

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned by the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A), there was justified reason for setting aside the order and restore the appeal to the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A) on this ground alone since the merits of the case have not been discussed. However, since the facts can be ascertained from the record and setting aside the order would cause further inconvenience

M/S. PRABHAKAR VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. SWIFT TRACOM PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. PROTEX COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. SIMPLEX COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S.LIFELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

M/S. ANCIENT NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 2013/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ancient Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito,Ward-6(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 2016 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2014/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Swift Tracom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 0353 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2015/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcd 0233 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2016/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Simplex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aamcs 3520 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2017/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Protex Commercial Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 6929 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2018/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Prabhakar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecp 76663 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 264 petition in the mean time which was not maintainable. We are informed the said revision petition also stood dismissed. All these solemn averments have gone unresulted from the Revenue’s side. We therefore condone the delay

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay of 264 days in filing the appeal was not condoned as the reasons given by the assessee were not found to be justified in the earlier paragraphs of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR argued that the assessee was not vigilant and the appeal was filed late which has been rightly dismissed