GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWERC vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in\nthis case, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this\ncase, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

delay of 10 months\nfrom 07.09.2022 to 03.07.2023 is directly due to sheer negligence of\nassessee. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any sympathy.\nLastly, he relied upon decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti\nRamghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) and\nRoyal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361\n(Madras HC) and also

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10 months elapsed\nbetween the PCIT's revisional order and the AO's\nconsequential order, and yet the assessee took no action.\nEven the appeal before CIT(A) was filed over two years later.\nThis lack of vigilance was held fatal to the assessee's case.\nThe Tribunal refused to condone the delay, holding\nthat commercial entities are expected

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

delay of 10 months from 07.09.2022 to 03.07.2023 is directly due to sheer negligence of assessee. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any sympathy. (vi) Lastly, he relied upon decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) and Royal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras HC) and also

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

delay of 10 months from 07.09.2022 to 03.07.2023 is directly due to sheer negligence of assessee. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any sympathy. (vi) Lastly, he relied upon decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) and Royal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras HC) and also

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

5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There was a delay of 191 days in filing of these appeals before CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has passed identical orders for both the years after considering the reasons given in Form-35 for delay and declined the condonation of delay in para

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

5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There was a delay of 191 days in filing of these appeals before CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has passed identical orders for both the years after considering the reasons given in Form-35 for delay and declined the condonation of delay in para

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

5), the claim for deduction under section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1-4-2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section

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

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

10-JD for Assessment Years 2020-21,\n2021-22 and 2022-23 where there is a delay of more than\n365 days.\n4. The Pro CCsITI CCsITI DsGITI Pro CsITI CsIT while deciding\nsuch applications for condonation of delay in furnishing of Form\nNo. IO-IC or Form No. IO-ID to exercise the option, under section\n115BAA

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

5 of 10 ABDE ALI ITA No. 647&648/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 came to know of about the impugned order when logged on to the portal. Upon logging in the said “impugned order” was found. It was submitted that delay has happened due to bonafide reason and sufficient cause is shown. The delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay

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

5 of 10 ABDE ALI ITA No. 647&648/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 came to know of about the impugned order when logged on to the portal. Upon logging in the said “impugned order” was found. It was submitted that delay has happened due to bonafide reason and sufficient cause is shown. The delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner

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)

condoning delay. We find that section Page 7 of 10 BSM Shelter Estate India Private Limited ITA Nos. 290& 291/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 253(5

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

condoning delay. We find that section Page 7 of 10 BSM Shelter Estate India Private Limited ITA Nos. 290& 291/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 253(5

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