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

253, subsection (3) of section 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

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

253, subsection (3) of section 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

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

253, subsection (3) of section 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

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

253, subsection (3) of section 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

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

section 253(3) of the Act.\n5.\nWe have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of\ndelay. There was a delay of 806 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. In the\naffidavit, the appellant has stated that the CIT(A) issued the notices on e-mail\naddresses, i.e., ‘hkpantassociates@gmail.com' and 'hkp2012itr@gmail.com'.\nThe appellant has stated that

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

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

condonation of delay is well settled. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 253(5) of the Act is to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

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

PRAFULCHABNDRA BHAICHANDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(3)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.104/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prafulchandra Bhaichandbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bharthana (Vesu), Via-Althan, Taluka 2(3)(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Choryasi, Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azcpd7755Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.” 9. Hon`ble High Court of Madras, in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd.[2006] 287 ITR 555 (Madras) has explained the theory of pragmatic approach to advance the justice. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “4. It is apparent on the face

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

4. In VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. (SC): 44 ALR 577 (SC) the apex court made a distinction in delay and SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL reported in 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

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condonation of delay in case of ITA No.167/SRT/2021 in the case of Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (supra) is as follows: “I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.167/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018, Though this appeal should have been filed

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.8/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Raiyani Brothers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Dumaswala Compound, Near Ward-3(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Sargam Doctor House, Hira Baug, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2012-13 made on the 17.05.2019 vide ITA No.8/SRT/2021, which was communicated to us on 06.06.2019. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date