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

249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in under section 273B of the Act, 1961. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers

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

249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in under section 273B of the Act, 1961. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers

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

249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in under section 273B of the Act, 1961. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers

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

249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in under section 273B of the Act, 1961. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers

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

condoning the delay &\ndismissing the appeal ex-party.\n2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short\npayment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential interest of Rs.3,420/-\ncharged on same, resulting in erroneous demand of Rs.14,170/-.\n3. The deductees have received TDS certificates from the appellant, which\nthey have used to claim credit

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

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

condoning the delay &\ndismissing the appeal ex-party.\n2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short\npayment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential interest of Rs.3,420/-\ncharged on same, resulting in erroneous demand of Rs.14,170/-.\n3. The deductees have received TDS certificates from the appellant, which\nthey have used to claim credit

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

4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that delay before the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) should not be condoned by the Tribunal. Let the assessee be filed a petition for condonation of delay before the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) and NFAC/ld. CIT(A) should take independent decision to condone the delay of (649) 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)

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 due to non-receipt of the order by the appellant. The appellant filed both appeals immediately after its CA informed about the order passed

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)

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 due to non-receipt of the order by the appellant. The appellant filed both appeals immediately after its CA informed about the order passed

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

Section 249(2)(b) and 249(3) of the Act. Thus, the delay was not condoned and appeal was dismissed as unadmitted. As recorded 5 Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai Vs ITO above, before me, the ld. AR of the assessee while making her submission vehemently contended that the assessee has good case on merit as the revenue has taxed the same

VISHAL ENTERPRISE,VYARA vs. NFAC,DELHI, ITO WARD 1, BARDOLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE-BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1034/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Enterprise, Vs. The Ito, Vyara S.O., Vyara, Surat – 394650, Ward – 1, Gujarat Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfv2047E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2025

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that assessment order was passed on 08.05.2023, but the appellant had filed appeal on 01.03.2024, which was delayed by 329 days. The appellant had not even acknowledged this delay in the Form No.35. He held that in condoning the delay

PRAFULBHAI JAGUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

section 249 of the Act permits the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within prescribed time limit. The notion of condonation of delay encompasses the discretionary power of an appellate authority to extend the prescribed time limit for filing