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

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

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing

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

b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, the appellant challenged the order dt. 22.6.2000 (received by appellant on 1.7.2000) by filing appeal on 13.1.03, thus there was a delay of 2 year 5 months on the part of the assessee

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

b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, the appellant challenged the order dt. 22.6.2000 (received by appellant on 1.7.2000) by filing appeal on 13.1.03, thus there was a delay of 2 year 5 months on the part of the assessee

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

b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, the appellant challenged the order dt. 22.6.2000 (received by appellant on 1.7.2000) by filing appeal on 13.1.03, thus there was a delay of 2 year 5 months on the part of the assessee

MALWA PATIDAR SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI ,HATPIPLIYA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimalwa Patidar Samaj Shiksha Adit, Cpc Samiti Bangaluru Hatpiplya Tehsil Bagli Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam4373Q Assessee By Mrs. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2024

condonation of delay in filing for filing the form 10BB u/s 119(2)(b) before the competent authority as specified by the CBDT in Circular no.15/2022 dated 19.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was claimed by the assesse only after the assesse was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) vide order

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

condonation of delay, pursued the same and made all sincere efforts but the same is pending with authorities. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has taken several adjournments in this appeal from ITAT itself on the ground of pendency of application before authorities. But, no outcome is forthcoming from authorities. Ld. AR submitted that in any case, the application

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

119(1) of the Act, extends the due date for electronic filing of such Form as under: (i) The application for registration or approval under Section 10(23C), 12A or 80G of the Act in form No.10AB, for which the last date for filing falls on or before 29th September, 2022, may be filed on or before 30th September

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

2. Refusing to condone the delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest than can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties sale 3. “Everyday delay must be explained “” does not mean that

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

condonation under the existing provisions of the Act. The CCslT/DGsIT shall examine the following while deciding such applications – (i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub·section (I) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence/s; (ii) where delay

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE vs. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Cpc, Bengaluru Uddeshiya Shiksha Avm Sarvajanik Nyas, बनाम/ 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Vs. Pipliyahana Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaetr9004R Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” (viii

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

2. CIT Vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar) 3. CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 IRE 389 (Kar) 4. Goverdhan Singh Sekhawat Vs. ITO (2019) 102 taxmann.com 50 (Jaipur- Trib) 5. Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs.CIT (2019) 419 ITR 298 (Mad) 6. Ms. Moturi Lakshmi Vs. ITO (2020) 119 taxmann.com 488 (Mad) Page 10 of 14 Goverdhan

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

2 of 14 Nancy Ann Miller Educational Trust, Indore Assessment year 2018-19 5. At first, we would like to extract the impugned order passed by CIT(A) in first-appeal: “5. Denial of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act: 5.1 The appellant filed return of income in ITR 7 for the A.Y.2018-19 on 31.08.2018. As per Section

M/S SHRIMAT MAHRAJA JAGDEVRAO PAWAR SMRITI SHIKSHA SANSTHA,DHAR vs. CIT EXMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Cit(Exemption ) Shrimatmahrajajagdevraop Bhopal बनाम/Vs. Awarsmritishikshasanstha Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abmfs9101P Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022

condonation of delay in filing form no.10BB for assessment year 2017-18 was rejected. 2. The appeal was heard on 20.10.2022. Subsequently, on perusal of case records it was found that the appeal is filed against the order passed by lower authorities u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. But however, M/s. ShrimatMahrajaJagdevraoPawarSmritiShikshaSanstha Assessment year

SHREE AMIZIRA PARSHWANATH SWETAMBAR JAIN TIRTH TRUST,AMIJHERA vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Shree Amizira Parshwanath Ito Swetamber Jain Tirth Trust Dhar बनाम/ Amzera Sardarpur Vs. Dhar (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Aamts9264J Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

condone delay in filing audit report is vested in CIT(Exemption) u/s Page 4 of 11 Shree Amizira Parshwanath Swetambar Jain ITA No. 292/Ind/2025 - Assessment year 2022-23 119(2)(b) of the Act. With these submissions, he requested to uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal of assessee. 7. We have heard rival contentions of both sides

WELFARE ASSOCIATION FOR DISABLED,INDORE vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Welfare Association For The Adit, Cpc, Disabled, Bengaluru, 10, Sukhliya, Indore. बनाम/ Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaaw 0912 G Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

condonation of delay, pursued the same and made all sincere efforts but the same is pending with authorities. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has taken several adjournments in this appeal from ITAT itself on the ground of pendency of application before authorities. But, no outcome is forthcoming from authorities. Ld. AR submitted that in any case, the application