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

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

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

SHRI JAYESH CHANDULAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-3(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 20.07.2007. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, for Assessment Year 2000-01, is barred by limitation by 3793 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. To explain, the ITA.50/SRT/2020/AY.2000-01 Jayesh Chandulal Shah delay, the assessee

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

condoning the delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 253(3) of the Income

SAHEBSINGH RAWAT,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD 8, VAPI

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned

sections": [ "253(3)", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned due to \"sufficient

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

253(3)", "Section 50C", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

GOPAL BHASKAR CHAUDHARI,VALSAD vs. ITO WARD 3, VAPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nas not admitted, being time-barred under the provisions of\nSection 253(3) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 5 of the\nLimitatio...

condoning delay, which necessitates reasonable diligence and bona fides from the appellant. The assessee's failure to even attempt to explain the inordinate delay demonstrates negligence and disregard for procedural discipline.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 253(3

GOPAL BHASKAR CHAUDHARI,VALSAD vs. ITO WARD 3, VAPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nas not admitted, being time-barred under the provisions of\nSection 253(3) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 5 of the\nLimitatio...

condonation of delay or provide any explanation for the delay, even after being notified. The Tribunal cited various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for \"sufficient cause\" and reasonable diligence.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 253(3

SAROJ TILAKRAJ JUNEJA,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1048/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Vs. The Dcit, 3, Subhas Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abbpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2025

condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 71 days though delay was for reasonable cause. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the additions by dismissing the appeal on ground of delay. ITA No.1048/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Saroj Tilakraj Juneja 3. the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the ground regarding stay of reassessment proceedings

THAKORBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MORI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

253 ITR 798 (SC): 125 STC 375 inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration

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)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi was not received by the appellant. When the ITBA portal was opened by the Counsel of the appellant

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)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi was not received by the appellant. When the ITBA portal was opened by the Counsel of the appellant

BHOJALRAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "80P", "143(3)", "253

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee

SHRI HARGOVIND ISHWARBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

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

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit\nexplaining reasons for the delay. It has been stated that the assessee was\nunaware of the passing of the order by the CIT(A) since his registered e-mail\nand mobile number on the income tax portal belonged to his former\nconsultant. Due to non updation of details

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

3 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application/affidavit. Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of cash deposits in bank a/c during demonetization period but the assessee

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not deliberate. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "68", "69A", "250", "253(3