SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

30 taxmann.com 41 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under s. 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. The question whether

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

30 taxmann.com 41 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under s. 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. The question whether

M/SWAHEGURU BUSINESS (P) LTD.,SARV NAGAR vs. DCIT-CC, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay of 30

MOHD. YUNUS WARSI,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing the first appeal. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However section

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

MUSTAKEEN AHAMAD,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 249 sub-sec. (2) of the Act provides period of\nlimitation as 30 days. Hence, the remaining meager duration should have\nbeen considered by the Id. CIT(Appeals) in a more positive manner. It\nappears to us that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

30 days in accordance with section 249(2) of the Act and the order was passed on merit. The law on the subject is well settled that unless the delay is condoned

MUKESH KUMAR,AURAIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4), AURAIYA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

30 days\nin filing the appeal against the penalty order before the ld. CIT (A) and the\nsame is also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard,\nld. AR submitted that assessee has submitted application of condonation of\ndelay along with affidavit in support. Thus, he submitted that the assessee has\nsufficient and bona fide

MUKESH KUMAR,AURAIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4), AURAIYA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

30 days\nin filing the appeal against the penalty order before the ld. CIT (A) and the\nsame is also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard,\nld. AR submitted that assessee has submitted application of condonation of\ndelay along with affidavit in support. Thus, he submitted that the assessee has\nsufficient and bona fide

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

delay in filing appeal. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal be admitted lest charity may suffer.” 4. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section