SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

section 154 of the Cr.PC at Malad West Police 2 I.T.A. No. 506/Mum/2025 Station, the Assessee was not available and was preoccupied with the said proceedings, as a result of which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The appeal was eventually filed before the Tribunal on 24/01/2025, resulting in a delay of 330 days. 2.1. Having

NATIONAL WELFARE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

7) State of Jharkhand & Ors, vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors, (8) Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, had evolved the following guidelines for condonation of delay: “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the low, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (1) Law of limitation is based upon

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

154 shall stands restored. 7 16.09.2022 Appeal filed in Appeal filed after ITAT against the delay of 4 years order of CIT(A) 6 months and six dated 29.12.2017 days 5. In view of the above, the entire delay in filing of appeal to Hon’ble ITAT submitted as above and it is further requested to your goodself that condonation

KSHIPRA ENTERPROISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. From the records, I noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Whereas, the Ld. AR relied upon

IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

Accordingly, we declined to\ninterfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and\nsame is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee\nare dismissed

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:\n\nWe refer to the order dated 11.08.2010 of the Assessing\nOfficer framed under section 154 of the Act determining total\nincome 4,46,37,540 for income-tax assessment year 2008-09.\nIn this connection, we would like to inform you that the appeal\nagainst the aforesaid assessment order

SHRI KHANDESHWAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Patsanstha Ltd. Mumbai C/O. Shantaram Jagtap, Ravji Sojpal Vs. 422, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Chawl No. 7, Room No.18, T.J. Vashi Railway Station Road, Sewri, Mumbai-400015 Complex, Vashi, Mumbai- 400703 Pan No. Abyfs 0132 L Appellant Respondent

7 Shri Khandeshwar Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd by any malice, but occasioned by a bona fide misunderstanding of tax obligations. 3.2 The period prescribed for filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is 30 days under Section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section (3) thereof vests a discretionary power in the appellate authority to condone delay, if sufficient

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

condone the delay in filing of appeal and matter will be adjudicated on its merits. 1. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its original return on 27-10-2007 declaring total profit of Rs 1,22,67,480/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a detailed questionnaire was issued

M/S. SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-27, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

154 days. The appellant has also\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land\nAcquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (Supra). On going through the facts of the case and the\nmaterial on record, we find that there is inordinate delay of more than 1114 days\nin filing appeal by the assessee before the ITAT

RAHUL RAMESH EKTARE ,THANE vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

Section 249(3) of the Act to warrant condonation of delay. 3.1 The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that against the intimation u/s 143(1) the raising a demand of Rs. 4,43,510/- (including interest) the assessee had already filed an online response against the outstanding demand seen on the income tax portal explaining that

SHASHWAT FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

154 on 14.08.2023. And the appellant has filed an appeal on 31.08.2023. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) has rejected the appeal and not condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. If the delay was not condoned it would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order. The power given to the authority is not to legalise an injustice

ACCESS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

7) SC1]. For, condoning delay, the Ld. AR has relied on the following Hon’ble Supreme Court decision (infra) which has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Pankaj Hiralal Marothi (infra) wherein the Hon’ble Courts have directed the lower authorities, to liberally condone the delay. Per-Contra, the Ld. DR opposed the admission

PURNIMA SHETTY,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay, if he is satisfied with the assessee on ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period. For evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji

MERCHANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sandeep Singh Karhailmerchant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 102, Renuka Residency 1St Floor, Main Road Near Shriram Mandir, Jawhar, Jawhar S.O., District- Palghar, ……………. Appellant Mumbai, Maharashtra - 401603 Pan-Aabam0430C V/S

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. JCIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

154/- of scrip M/s Regency Trust Limited as income, despite the fact that the of scrip M/s Regency Trust Limited as income, despite the fact that the of scrip M/s Regency Trust Limited as income, despite the fact that the ledger and submission and computation of short t ledger and submission and computation of short term capital gain

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: the Tribunal. 4. We would first take up ITA No. 1173/Mum/2024 [Financial Year 2012-13: Quarter 2/Form 27EQ] as the lead matter which has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 2

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice