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.

condonation of the delay under Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea

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

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 of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a charitable Trust registered/approved u/s 80G(5) of the Act since 2016. However, an amendment was brought into

SILIGURI SALASAR BALAJEE SEWA TRUST,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T., (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation of the delay.\nAfter going over the said application, we find sufficient reasons behind\nthe delay and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby\ncondoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was granted provisional\napproval u/s 80G(5

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)

section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 6.5.2022 along with annexures.” 5. In view of the submission made we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for the delay which was neither mala fide/intentional nor 3 Nitdaa Foundation has given any benefit to the assessee. Hence, the delay of 77 days is hereby condoned

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5

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)

section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, it is evident that the time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power 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

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5

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

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5

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.

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under. "In exercising discretion under section 5

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.

condonation of delay. (d) In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under. "In exercising discretion under section 5

SRIVIDYA RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5

AGARWAL SABHA ,ULUBARI, GUWAHATI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraagarwal Sabha, Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, H.No. 92A, Saratkunj 10B, Middleton Road, Apartment, Mill Road, Ulubari, Vs Kolkata - 700071 Guwahati (Pan: Aalaa5893M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, it is evident that the time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay

SRIVIDYA RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5

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

condonation of delay. In Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001 (44) ALR 577, (d) the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5

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

Section 5 and to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal with a certified copy of the order.” Hon'ble Supreme

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a\nsuitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in\napproaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the\nwords \"sufficient cause\" under Section 5

BHABAR BHABANI MANDIR PUBLIC TRUST,WEST BENGAL BURDWAN vs. CIT EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishrabhabar Bhabani Mandir Public Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, Trust, Income Tax Office, 10B, Kalna Saspur Kalna, Purba Vs Middleton Road, Bardhaman - 713409 Kolkata - 700071 (Pan: Aadtb5275B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, it is evident that the time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay