STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

condoning delay, and mere technicalities or liberal interpretations cannot overcome the law of limitation. The assessee failed to provide any cogent reason or documentary evidence to justify the extensive delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 200A(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 249(3

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of assessee. I also observed that NFAC/ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit based on the assessment records and assessment order and simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine in view of the non-compliance of the provision of section 249(3

VEHEVAL MILK PRODUCER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "143(3)", "144B", "80P(d)", "249(3)", "249(2)"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

condonation of delay in filing\nappeal under section 249(3) of the Act. Further as per section 250(1), the Id\nCIT

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that there was a small delay of 20 days

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that there was a small delay of 20 days

JAYSHREEBEN NILAMKUMAR DESAI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, I.T.O., Saket, New Patel Nagar Society, Chhapra Ward-3, Vs. Road, Navsari. Navsari. Pan No. Ambpd 8733 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay. The assessee has not shown reasonable cause to which prevented her from filing appeal within prescribed time. The assessee lacks due diligence in presenting appeal. The assessee has not fulfilled the requirement of Section 249(2)(b) and 249(3