VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

119(2)(b) wherein such belated claims of the assessee are to be considered so as to avoid genuine hardship. Routine acceptance of all such belated claims of the appellant makes this section redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the appellant for allowing set off of unabsorbed

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

119 (Delhi). 9. 15 The appellant in the course of the assessment proceedings as well as in the course of the appellate proceedings had failed to satisfy the three vital ingredients of section 68 of the Act to the satisfaction of the AO particularly in respect of the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction including the bona fide

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the present case, there is no evidence on record that the appellant filed any such condonation petition before the Commissioner. CPC was therefore justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. 5.3 As regard appellant's appeal