M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee Shri Akkal Dudhwewala submitted that ITA No. 2652/Kol/2019 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 dated 24.07.2019, wherein

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

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

6 of 2020 contemplates that if delay in filing the return under section 139(1) has occurred, that delay is to be condoned

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

6. Besides, the ld. AR vehemently submitted that since the assessee was advised by the counsel not to file the appeal and hence this delay has happened which was totally beyond the control of the assessee. The subsequent counsel appointed thereafter advised the assessee to file the appeal with condonation of delay. The ld. AR contended that the assessee should

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

6. Besides, the ld. AR vehemently submitted that since the assessee was advised by the counsel not to file the appeal and hence this delay has happened which was totally beyond the control of the assessee. The subsequent counsel appointed thereafter advised the assessee to file the appeal with condonation of delay. The ld. AR contended that the assessee should

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

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 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 7 years 6

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\ndelay.\n16. Your petitioner states that the said tax consultant immediately gave\ndirections to the said Tax Advocate to draft the application for\ncondonation of delay. Thesaid Tax Advocate prepared the necessary\ndocuments and shared it with the Assessee and the said tax consultant\nvide an email dated March 11, 2020. The said Tax Advocate also advised\nthat

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

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return. I.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year

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.

6. It is submitted that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the assessee humbly prays that the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned considering the above circumstances. 7. It is humbly submitted that the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal was not due to any malafide intention or negligence on our part

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.

6. It is submitted that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the assessee humbly prays that the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned considering the above circumstances. 7. It is humbly submitted that the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal was not due to any malafide intention or negligence on our part

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

6. It is well settled in law that the delay may be condoned in cases where sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing of the appeal. In support of the same we are relying on the following decisions: (a) In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kati Ji 1987 (13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

6. It is well settled in law that the delay may be condoned in cases where sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing of the appeal. In support of the same we are relying on the following decisions: (a) In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kati Ji 1987 (13) ALR 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court

BOUTIQUE DE FLEUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 2 Boutique De Fleur 4. The facts in brief are that during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), the assessee-firm deposited cash of Rs.13,18,000/- in its Kotak Mahindra Bank, Minto Park Branch. The assessee was requested vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14.03.2018 to furnish a true and correct return

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; 6