BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

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

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

154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The AO has in his order has stated that the assessee has filed a belated return on 30.03.2018 for the said assessment year, however, has not fled the audit report in Form 108. Accordingly. the AD rejected the claim off exemption

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

condoning the delay in filing audit report (Form No. 10B) but the assessee has not filed any petition before Commissioner of Income-tax, and (iii) The assessee has filed rectification-application u/s 154

SAVITRI BAI JHAWAR SEWA NYAS,KHANDWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

condonation of delay is concerned, we find that the assessee has duly explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The explanation of the assessee that the rectification-order passed by the AO u/s 154

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 249(2) without affording any opportunity of hearing for delay condoned when the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause that CPC has specifically stated that the rectification rights transferred to jurisdictional assessing officer on 25-6- 2013 Para No 5 -6 pg. no _2 of the appeal order, reproduces as under: “It is observed that the order under section

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO-EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

154 of the Act, the action of the AO by rejecting the said rectification petition is sustainable and accordingly the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

154 of the Act, the action of the AO by rejecting the said rectification petition is sustainable and accordingly the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking appropriate steps and if he appears to be guilty of lapses or negligence, then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation. 4.4 On the basis of the circumstances of the case, it is held that

PITAMBER WADHWANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

condoned delay. 3.2 Ld. DR for revenue could not controvert these submissions of Ld. AR. 3.3 After a careful consideration, we are of the view that when the assessee was pursuing alternate remedy of rectification u/s 154

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under Page 17 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under Page 17 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

rectification- application u/s 154 before AO. Ld. AR very humbly submits that there was no lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit whatsoever because of delay. Ld. AR submitted that in such reasonable circumstance, the CIT(A) should not have taken a view to dismiss

KAUSHALYA AGARWAL TRUST,INDORE vs. CPC BANGLORE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

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

condoned as sufficient cause is shown and appeal is admitted. It is accordingly taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR then brought to our notice that in the "impugned order” the 1st appeal was dismissed only on ground of delay in the filing of the 1st appeal by 120 days. It was contended that

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. “1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance made by CPC,IT Department Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 154 without providing any opportunity to object the proposed rectification

SHRI VISHAL BAJAJ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD 5(1), INDORE

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

delayed because the assessee tried to get the first appellate order rectified by considering the written submissions of the assessee, but the rectification application of the assessee u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not accepted by the learned CIT(A). 3. Replying to the above, the learned DR vehemently contended that when the assessee or his authorized

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification application u/s 154 before the AO and thus the assessee did not file any appeal against the impugned orders of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR has thus submitted that since there was no tax demand involved as a result of protective addition the assessee was advised that the protective addition would be deleted in the hands

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification application u/s 154 before the AO and thus the assessee did not file any appeal against the impugned orders of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR has thus submitted that since there was no tax demand involved as a result of protective addition the assessee was advised that the protective addition would be deleted in the hands