SWARGIY GOPALRAO GAWANDE BAHUUDESHIY SANSTHA BHIDI,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 253(5) of the Act. In other words, the assessee acted in a non-challant way with lackadaisical propensity for delay and the grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought, not only lack bona fides completely, but also, are not only fanciful and seems to be fully concocted on over all consideration of the facts and circumstances

LOKSEWA SHIKSHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA MANDAL,BULDHANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

253(3) is reproduced here as under : (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the 73a[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, as the case may be : 74[Provided that in respect

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,GHAZIABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOMDE EF, GAZIABADQQQ.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

ESTATE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal should be treated as filed within the allowed time and oblige. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.” 4

VASUNDHARA BAHUUDESHIYA SAMAJIKK SANSTHA,KHAMGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

condonation of delay. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 37 days. It is also an undisputed fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the order dated 27/04/2021 in Miscellaneous Application

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

4. It was submitted that the bank did not derive any benefit from delay in filing of appeals; rather it suffered a serious risk of high handed demand. The judiciary is respected on account of its power to provide justice and not for condoning injustice on technical grounds. The judiciary is capable, and is expected to do so, of removing

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

4. It was submitted that the bank did not derive any benefit from delay in filing of appeals; rather it suffered a serious risk of high handed demand. The judiciary is respected on account of its power to provide justice and not for condoning injustice on technical grounds. The judiciary is capable, and is expected to do so, of removing

M/S SANT YOGIRAJ URBAN CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act mandates that an appeal should be admitted before ever an order is passed on the merits. Once the appeal itself is not entertained, the question of going into the merits of the matter does not arise. We, therefore, find that the order of the Tribunal deciding the appeals of the assessee

VAISHALI KAKDE,MANISH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4(5), CIVIL LINES

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

4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and\n(5) Guard file.\nTrue Copy\nBy Order\nPradeep J. Chowdhury\nSr. Private Secretary\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Nagpur", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 282 days. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was considered and the delay was condoned

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not 44 45 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal

ASHISH HARISH PARSHIONIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryashish Harish Parshionikar, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur. 214, Suyog Nagar, Manewada Vs. Road, Ring Road, Nagpur. Pan: Arbpp 1844 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was required to be filed within 60 days, i.e., by 02.12.2023. However, the present appeal is being filed on 23.05.2025, resulting in a delay of 53 Bdays. 3. Reasons for Delay: The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate