M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and 6 caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

condone the delay subject of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the account of Central Government. [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] 9. Now, we take up the matter. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the learned Commissioner of Income tax(A) erred in law in not affording reasonable opportunity of being heard while

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

income-tax papers by his Accountant due inadvertent mistake on account of renovation of office was being carried on for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal

RADHA MAHESHWARI,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Maheshwari Ito 4 Bahadurganj, Khidwdkar Dewas Marg Behind Civi Hospital Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azcpm1050B Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .07.2024

Income Tax (Appeal), (National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi for A.Y.2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Hon CIT has dismissed the appeal due to delay in filling the appeal by the assessee and application for condonation of delay has not denied by the Hon CIT. ITANo.517/Ind/2023 Radha Maheshwari 2. Ld AO has made an addition

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in rejecting the application u/s 154 and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in maintaining the order. 3. The Ld. NFAC erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon. Tribunal in the case of Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College vide ITA no. 469/IND/2018 wherein

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

INCOME TAX A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM & KUL BHARAT, JM. (2013) 37 CCH 0292 AhdTrib Principle of natural justice–Opportunity of being heard–CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assesse being filed beyond prescribed stipulated period without accompanying application for condonation of delay–Assesse challenged dismissal of appeal contending that CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order without giving opportunity of being

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, it was explained that additional income

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Additional interest for which the assessee is eligible as per sub-section (1A) of Section 244(A) and/or to pay compensation for delayed payment for which assessee is eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund.” 4. The above ground could not be raised in the original Memo of appeal. However, this is necessary to raise

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Additional interest for which the assessee is eligible as per sub-section (1A) of Section 244(A) and/or to pay compensation for delayed payment for which assessee is eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund.” 4. The above ground could not be raised in the original Memo of appeal. However, this is necessary to raise

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Additional interest for which the assessee is eligible as per sub-section (1A) of Section 244(A) and/or to pay compensation for delayed payment for which assessee is eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund.” 4. The above ground could not be raised in the original Memo of appeal. However, this is necessary to raise

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Income Tax Department. Further the “impugned order” is ex-parte without considering the merit of the case. Delay is unintentional. An additional affidavit Page 5 of 10 ARP Securities Ld ITA No.150 & 218/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 dated 20.09.2025 was also placed on record in the support of condonation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay