THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5[Explanation.—Any amount cr Any amount credited or paid, out of income referred to in clause (a) edited or paid, out of income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), read with the Explanation to that sub section (1), read with the Explanation to that sub-section, which is section, which is not applied

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:

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 a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay

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.

section 5. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in ns discretion it should condone the delay. e. The discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice f. No liberal view should be taken merely because the defaulting party is a Government. g. Even if there

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised

VKPM SEVA TRUST, KOLKATA vs. CIT(E), KOLAKTA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

4. Ld. D/R supported the order of ld. CIT (Exemption) thereby submitting that ld. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected by holding that ld. CIT (Exemption) has no power to condone the delay. 5. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the Counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the case of the assessee which is as follows: The brief fact

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)

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appeal is barred by limitation by 77 days and along with the memo of appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is as under: “Sub-Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against rejection of application in Form No.10AB u/s 80G(5) (iii) along with

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

4. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This

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 :-

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

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 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

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 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Your petitioner states that the said order dated December 31, 2009 was received

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

condone the delay and admit these appeal. 4. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of Ground Engineering, Civil & Structural works, building of power plants, construction of roads and highways etc. and trading in goods. For the Assessment Year 2005- 06, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring ‘Nil’ income

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

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)

4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the records were examined. An extract from the Statement of Facts is reproduced as under: 5 Prameya Foundation 6. It is submitted that the ITAT has the power to condone the delay in filing of Form 10AB of the Act for obtaining the final registration under Section

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (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 be a ground to condone the delay

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. (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 be a ground to condone the delay