Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4),, ... on 4 May, 2018

Shri Ramesh Bhai V.Prajapati,, ... vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income ... on 24 February, 2021

2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide ITAT order dated 20th Feb, 2018 as none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. The assessee has explained the reason for not filing the Miscellaneous Application within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed as elaborated supra supported by an affidavit and copies of other documents/details. The assessee has also pointed out that previous tax consultant has not attended his tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant has obtained various documents, these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing this appeal against ex-parte order which was passed on account of non-prosecution. After taking into consideration the facts narrated by the assessee supported by an affidavit/documents it appears that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance and delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application against ex-parte order passed on account of non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal, 1963) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, we condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Feelings Multimedia Ltd.,, Vadodara vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2),, ... on 22 March, 2021

In our considered opinion "sufficient cause" as appearing in the limitation Act should be liberally considered and the Tribunal cannot shut the door of justice to a litigant on the score of limitation. When the reason of delay has been properly explained, the Tribunal is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the applicant. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rule1963), the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, and the larger interest of the assessee seeking to avail the ongoing Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, we find -4- MA No.04/Ahd/2021(In ITA No.2865/A/15) Feelings Multimedia Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 that condonation of delay otherwise would not prejudice the interest of the Revenue in any manner rather would do substantial justice to the parties.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Xcellon Education Limited,, Ahmedabad vs The Addl. Cit, Tds,, Ahmedabad on 1 October, 2024

"2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide ITAT order dated 20th Feb, 2018 as none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. The assessee has explained the reason for not filing the Miscellaneous Application within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed as elaborated supra supported by an affidavit and copies of other documents/details. The assessee has also pointed out that previous tax consultant has not attended his tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant has obtained various documents, these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing this appeal against ex-parte order which was passed on account of non-prosecution. After taking into consideration the facts narrated by the assessee supported by an affidavit/documents it appears that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance and delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application against ex-parte order passed on account of nonprosecution. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal, 1963) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, we condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. Considering the above facts and findings, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Registry is directed to list this case for hearing on 30th March, 2021.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Xcellon Education Limited,, Ahmedabad vs The Addl. Cit, Tds,, Ahmedabad on 1 October, 2024

"2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide ITAT order dated 20th Feb, 2018 as none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. The assessee has explained the reason for not filing the Miscellaneous Application within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed as elaborated supra supported by an affidavit and copies of other documents/details. The assessee has also pointed out that previous tax consultant has not attended his tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant has obtained various documents, these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing this appeal against ex-parte order which was passed on account of non-prosecution. After taking into consideration the facts narrated by the assessee supported by an affidavit/documents it appears that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance and delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application against ex-parte order passed on account of nonprosecution. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal, 1963) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, we condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. Considering the above facts and findings, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Registry is directed to list this case for hearing on 30th March, 2021.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Xcellon Education Limited,, Ahmedabad vs The Addl. Cit, Tds,, Ahmedabad on 1 October, 2024

"2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide ITAT order dated 20th Feb, 2018 as none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. The assessee has explained the reason for not filing the Miscellaneous Application within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed as elaborated supra supported by an affidavit and copies of other documents/details. The assessee has also pointed out that previous tax consultant has not attended his tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant has obtained various documents, these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing this appeal against ex-parte order which was passed on account of non-prosecution. After taking into consideration the facts narrated by the assessee supported by an affidavit/documents it appears that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance and delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application against ex-parte order passed on account of nonprosecution. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal, 1963) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, we condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. Considering the above facts and findings, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Registry is directed to list this case for hearing on 30th March, 2021.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Xcellon Education Limited,, Ahmedabad vs The Addl. Cit, Tds,, Ahmedabad on 1 October, 2024

"2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide ITAT order dated 20th Feb, 2018 as none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. The assessee has explained the reason for not filing the Miscellaneous Application within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed as elaborated supra supported by an affidavit and copies of other documents/details. The assessee has also pointed out that previous tax consultant has not attended his tax matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant has obtained various documents, these circumstances and his ill health caused delay in filing this appeal against ex-parte order which was passed on account of non-prosecution. After taking into consideration the facts narrated by the assessee supported by an affidavit/documents it appears that there was reasonable cause for non-appearance and delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application against ex-parte order passed on account of nonprosecution. Therefore, keeping in view of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal, 1963) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. vs. ITO supra, we condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. Considering the above facts and findings, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Registry is directed to list this case for hearing on 30th March, 2021.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1