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

27, 2024 and appraised him of the order passed by the Learned District Judge. Your petitioner states that the said Tax Advocate examined the papers and again advised that the appeal against the order dated December 31, 2009 ought to be filed but the same would have to be amended and also an application for condonation of delay would have

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

27, 2024 and appraised him of the order passed by\nthe Learned District Judge. Your petitioner states that the said Tax\nAdvocate examined the papers and again advised that the appeal against\nthe order dated December 31, 2009 ought to be filed but the same would\nhave to be amended and also an application for condonation of delay\nwould have

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

27. We observed that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Mantangi Rubber Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 4498/Del/2013 dated 29.05.2015 considered a situation where there was a delay of 46 minutes in uploading the e- return and the Tribunal condoned the delay observing as under: - "2. Brief facts of the care are that

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

27 of 1999, Section 84 (w.e.f. 1.6.1999).] 12. In our opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play and having regards to the principal of natural justice, the appeals of the assessee I.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s B. N. Dutta need to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee could

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

condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) despite there being reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 3) For that upon facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in not providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard by way of video conferencing before dismissing the appeal in complete violation

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran

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

Section Assessee CIT(A)’s under AO’s order under order which which passed passed 1 556/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 2. 557/K/23 1999-2000 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 3. 558/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 08.07.2022 250 27.03.2015 147/144 Bhaskaran 4. 559/K/23 2000-2001 Nalini 12.07.2022 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran