M/S. SAMARTH INDIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OSD-1, RANGE-2,, SURAT
In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove
ITA 1629/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2002-03
Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean