MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) 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

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) 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

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the delay, if satisfied with the reasonableness of the cause in late presentation. In the context of Income-tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A) within 30

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

30 days of the receipt of the assessment order however the appeal in this case has been filed on 07.02.2018 which is almost a period of 2 years and 10 & half months (approx) from the service of the assessment order. 4.2 The appellant has stated that he could not file appeal in time because of complete downturn in the business

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

condone the delay of 798 and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 27.09.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.19,48,890/-. Return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) vide intimation

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

delay has occurred 8 which may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted for adjudication on merits of the case. 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue strongly opposed the request made by the assessee. Ld. DR submitted before the Bench that the original assessment order in this case was passed

FATIMABAI HAJIMIYA KOKANI PVT TRUST.,NASHIK vs. ITO (EXEP) WARD 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh 3 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

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

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

30 days of the service of the order to the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the order was not served to him. Section 249(3) gives the CIT(Appeals) powers to condone the delay

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

30, 2017, which was further extended October 31, 2017. There was a delay of 156 days in filing Form 10B. Hence, Form 10B was not filed within the time frame outlined by the Act. 7.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay