Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Shri Ramesh Bhai V.Prajapati,, ... vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income ... on 24 February, 2021 cites

Urmilaben Rameshbhai Prajapati vs Rameshbhai Shankarlal Prajapati on 15 June, 2020

The applicant has pointed out in the aforesaid correspondence that there was one intermediary person who coordinated with the previous tax consultant who had remained absent/misrepresented in the tax matters and the applicant being not well educated and conversant with law, he relied upon the said persons which caused this non-appearance etc. The applicant had no dishonest or malfide intentions to avoid paying legitimate dues of the department as evident from the instalments paid so far as per Form 26AS. Therefore said sequence of events clearly demonstrate that the applicant was neither dormant nor had accepted the order passed by Tribunal. He was very much aggrieved by such ex-pane order and all the M.A. No. 111/Ahd/2020 (I.T.A No. 945/Ahd/2016) A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 5 Shri Rameshbhai V. Prajapati vs. Dy. CIT intentions to take appropriate steps but he had no sufficient papers with him to proceed with filing Misc. application for restoration.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4),, ... on 4 May, 2018

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 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sanket Estate & Finance Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 20 October, 2016

It is held in case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. v. ITO Ward- 1(4) in Special Civil Application no 7163 of 2019 dl 16-2-2021 following the decision in case of Sanket Estate & Finance Pvt. Ltd v CIT { Tax appeal no. 133/2012 (32 laxmann.com 342) that reliance on Multiplan (supra) was erroneous. Therefore on this ground also the said order deserves to be recalled.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Kalra Papers Private Limited. vs Income Tax Officer on 11 December, 2020

iii. The applicant submits with utmost respects that the MA has not been filed just to take benefit under Vivad se Vishwas scheme because this scheme was introduce by Hon'ble Finance Minister in Lok Sabha on 5-2-2020 vide Direct Tax VSV Bill 2020. On the other hand, the applicant was pointing out for necessary action to recall the order of Tribunal in first reply dt 1-7-2019 and subsequent correspondence. Thus the VSV had VSV had not prompted him to make this application rather the attachment of immovable properly and launching of prosecution proceedings were all the more reasons for making this application. Even if such scheme were not in operation, it was in the interest of the applicant to get this order restored and heard on merits- It will be appreciated that in case this application is dismissed on this ground, it will frustrate the entire objective to launch this scheme as stated in CEDT circulars no. 9/ 22-4-2020 and no. 21/4-12- 2020. Therefore taking into consideration the same, a lenient view of the matter is requested. The applicant relies upon the decision in case of M/S Kalra Papers Pvt Ltd v ITO ( WC no.9467/2020 dt 11-12-2020 ) wherein it was held that "We are also persuaded to allow the petition, in view of the undertaking given by the Petitioner that it would apply under the Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme in the event the appeal is restored to its original number. The Petitioner's undertaking is taken on record and it shall be held bound by the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document

Late Shri Navinchandra Sakalchand ... vs Ito, Ward-5(2)(3)., Ahmedabad on 11 March, 2020

In support of his contention, the assessee has also filed copies letter dated 1st July, 2019 issued to the Assessing Officer regarding inspection of record for assessment year 2012-13, copies of letter dated 3rd July, 2019 for rectification of application u/s. 154 and copy of notice of demand of the TRO dated 11th Sep, 2019 and copies of other various correspondence made with the Assessing Officer pertaining to recovery of demand etc. The assessee has also filed a copy of judicial pronouncement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. through Dipak Bhagat vs. ITO Ward 1(4) dated 16.02.2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat adjudicated the issue pertaining to the appeal for non-prosecution as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1