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

10. In the circumstances, we hold that the tribunal has erred in recording the finding that the assessee has utterly failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation of delay. On the other hand, as observed, the assessee had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and had made out a case for condonation of delay

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

10 or sub- clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act, as the case may be. Hence, in cases where the trust has already made an application in Form Ho. 10AB under the said provisions but such application has been furnished after 30.09.2022 and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has not passed

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

14(5) Pune ITANo.1776/Pun/2024 an\nemail had gone to spam folder which contained assessment\norder. It was a case of delay before Ld. CIT(A). In the instant\ncase neither the assessee nor his tax consultant in their\nrespective affidavits have categorically stated that impugned\norder u/s 263 went to spam/junk folder. It is the\nassumption of the assessee that

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

condonation of delay and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in para 2 to 5 of affidavit as under: 2. Accordingly, I preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the penalty of Rs. 55,00,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section

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

10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other necessary documents were being gathered and also it is seen that no documents explaining cash credits were produced during the appeal proceedings. From the above it reveals that the appellant has not produced sufficient cause which

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

10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other necessary documents were being gathered and also it is seen that no documents explaining cash credits were produced during the appeal proceedings. From the above it reveals that the appellant has not produced sufficient cause which

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

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

condone the delay. Appeal\nadmitted and taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR has placed on the record of this tribunal PB\ncontaining pages 1 to 67.A one pager chronological table.\nITR-7 for AY 17-18 bearing no:\n567739291300318. Our\nattention was invited to PB Page 23 which is an “order u/s\n154 of the act" dated

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

14 you have mentioned that there is no delay in filing the appeal as in column no. 2(c) of Form No. 35 1.e. 'Date of service of Order/Notice of Demand, you have mentioned the date of service as 21.09.2023. The assessment order was passed under faceless proceedings and was digitally issued to the appellant well in lime. However

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

14 you have mentioned that there is no delay in filing the appeal as in column no. 2(c) of Form No. 35 1.e. 'Date of service of Order/Notice of Demand, you have mentioned the date of service as 21.09.2023. The assessment order was passed under faceless proceedings and was digitally issued to the appellant well in lime. However

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 wherein the CBDT has given following instructions to assessing authorities:\n\"3. Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of on assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in event reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

section 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for non-representing the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.” 6.3 Further

PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO (EXEMPTION), UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay of 14 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay