M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of assessee in making delay in filing present appeals. Relying upon decisions in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmla Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of assessee in making delay in filing present appeals. Relying upon decisions in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmla Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

delay is found to be sufficient and condonable then the Ld. CIT (A) may proceed to decide the first appeal basis merit as he/she deems fit and proper. 4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions as aforesaid

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

delay is found to be sufficient and condonable then the Ld. CIT (A) may proceed to decide the first appeal basis merit as he/she deems fit and proper. 4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions as aforesaid

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order” has been dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same (560 days delay). The condonation of delay

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

penalty notices\nwere furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate\nresponse was fled during the assessment proceedings and no\nappeal was filed against the same. Therefore, the appellant craves\nto request the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty order” has been dismissed on the\nground of delay in filing the same (560 days delay). The\ncondonation of delay application made before the first appellate\nauthority i.e. Ld. CIT(A) was not considered and it was held that\nthe same had not shown the “sufficient cause” for the purposes\nof the condonation

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned. Most respectfully we also place reliance on the judgement of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 2395/2008 in the case case of\nImprovement Trust Ludhiana v. Ujakar Singh & another vide judgment dated\n09/02/2010 in which it is held that unless malafides at large, delay should be\ncondoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced herewith. Para-4 of reply dated 28.12.2022 During the financial year 2011-12 assessee has purchase

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

penalty or the date on which intimation of order sought to be appeal against is served. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the limitation shall be counted only from the date of service of the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. He has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

Penalty Order” is not on merits & the “Impugned\nOrder" of the CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal by not\ncondoning the delay. We observe that the Ld. AR has\ndemonstrated before us during the hearing that there are\nsufficient causes for the delay & even the Ld. DR has not raised\nany serious argument opposing the condonation

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

delay if any be condoned with cost. Further the assessee company be directed to cooperate with the department as even the “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR also pleaded that the first appellate order is not meritorious in nature and prayed for remand so that order on merit could be passed. 3.2 In respect

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order, the appellant failed to file any appeal against the assessment order. The appeal against assessment order was filed only on 03.07.2023 with a brief reason for condonation of delay

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order, the appellant failed to file any appeal against the assessment order. The appeal against assessment order was filed only on 03.07.2023 with a brief reason for condonation of delay

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

condonation of delay which is ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. supported by the affidavit of director of the assessee company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the assesse during the Covid-19 pandemic period and therefore, out of the total delay of 737 days the delay

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Penalty-Appeal.\nITA No. 517/Ind/2024 – Quantum-Appeal:\n4.\nThe Registry has informed that this appeal is delayed by 458 days\nand therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the appeal was\nfiled by assessee on 28.06.2024 against impugned order dated 27.01.2023\npassed by CIT(A). He submits that the assessee has filed a condonation

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

penalty order is marked as Annexure (A/4)\nImmediately upon gaining such knowledge, she contacted another legal\ncounsel and took prompt steps to obtain relevant records and prefer the\npresent Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal without any further delay.\n10. That, the delay of 342 days has thus occurred on account of circumstances\nbeyond the control of the Appellant, including

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condonation-application supported by an affidavit according to which the reason of 12 days’ delay is the same as narrated for ‘persisting delay’ in ITA No. 290/Ind/2024 i.e. after receipt of penalty