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

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

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

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)

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.02.2020 vide ITA No.50/SRT/2020 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2000-01 made on the 19.08.2009, which was communicated to us on the 08.10.2009. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the 07.12.2009 counting the period of sixty days

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

delay in filing the appeal. Such negligent, casual and lackadaisical\napproach to file appeal cannot constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning\nof section 253(5) of the Act.\n10.\nIn view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative\nprecedents cited supra, we refuse to condone

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

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

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. \"\n4. We have considered the submission? made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessee\nand in absence of any contrary or material on record, the assessee is found to have\na \"sufficient cause\" for delay in filing present appeal as narrated above in foregoing\npara. We find that section 253(5

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

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

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

condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional and bonafide. Considering the principles of natural justice and the peculiar facts of the case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 250", "Section 253

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) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 5

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) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 5

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

delay in filing present appeal. Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time if the appeal filed along with application for condonation

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

DINESHKUMAR NANUBHAI VIRVAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in this

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

JASHUBHAI MANJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 84, Sainath Society, At-Maandavi Ward - 1, Ta-Mandavi, Surat-394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amppp2266C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dalzin Madan, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

5) of section 253 of the Act. The ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal