SHRI SUNIL MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-NAGPUR, NAGPUR
Appeals of the assessee are disposed of as 14
ITA 1682/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1675 To 1679/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Sunil Manakchand Kotecha, 4, Vardhaman Nagar, Near Sagar Park, Jalgaon-425001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abppk2141Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nashik. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1680 To 1684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Sunil Manakchand Kotecha, 4, Vardhaman Nagar, Near Sagar Park, Jalgaon-425001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abppk2141Q बनाम / V/S. Pr.Cit, Central-Nagpur Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan & Smt. Arrchena Shetty Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are 10 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2011-12 (I.E. Five Assessment Years). Out Of 10 Appeals Of The Assessee, 5 Appeals Pertain To The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit (Central), Nagpur U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 11.03.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Rest Of 5 Appeals Pertain To The Fresh Assessment Order Made U/S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Pr.Cit Passed The Revision Order Dated 11.03.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Whereas The Cit(A) Passed A Combined Appellate Order Commonly Dated 30.07.2018 Involving The Common Issues For All The Five Assessment Years. Otherwise, The Error Of Making A Revision Order By The Pr.Cit Is More Or Less Similar To All The 10 Appeals Under Consideration.
For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan &For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 263Section 43(5)(d)
5. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue strongly contested the condonation issue and submitted that there is no reasonable cause for condoning such huge delay. In this regard, ld. DR relied heavily on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kolte Patil Developers Ltd and strongly opposed the condonation issue.
6. On hearing
