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

Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 10. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra) and R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneswari

BISA NEEMA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN TRUST,M.G ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 3 of 13 Bisa Neema Panchayat Bhawan Trust, Indore. ITA No. 480/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2023-24 Court, we take a judicious view, condone 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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. 4. At first, we would like to reproduce the impugned order passed by CIT(E) by which the assessee’s application has been rejected:- Page 4 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. Page 5 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health

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

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

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

13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee’s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that he worked till the year 2020. 4. Per contra

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

13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee’s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that he worked till the year 2020. 4. Per contra

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

13. Under these circumstances, the delay of 191 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause is attributed as prescribed u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read

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

13. Under these circumstances, the delay of 191 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause is attributed as prescribed u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

13-07-2018 which is still pending and has also been unanswered. 3.5 It has been consistently held by the apex Court and various high court that in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic view should be taken. The reasons given by the appellant for the delay appears to be sufficient cause and, accordingly, the delay

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay

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

13. 16. In the appeals before the CIT (A) out of which the recent appeal to the Tribunal arises, the only question was with regard to payment of interest on interest in any form to the appellant. II. Submissions of the appellant before CIT (Appeals): i) That, there was inordinate delay in issuing refund to the appellant, thereby entitling

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

13. 16. In the appeals before the CIT (A) out of which the recent appeal to the Tribunal arises, the only question was with regard to payment of interest on interest in any form to the appellant. II. Submissions of the appellant before CIT (Appeals): i) That, there was inordinate delay in issuing refund to the appellant, thereby entitling

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

13. 16. In the appeals before the CIT (A) out of which the recent appeal to the Tribunal arises, the only question was with regard to payment of interest on interest in any form to the appellant. II. Submissions of the appellant before CIT (Appeals): i) That, there was inordinate delay in issuing refund to the appellant, thereby entitling

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

13. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the Instruction No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 . For the sake of clarity Instruction No.13 of 2006 is reproduced as under :- “INSTRUCTION NO. 13/2006, DATED 22-12-2006 1. The procedure for dealing with the applications for condonation of delay in filing returns and claiming refund is presently governed by the Board

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)

13 of condonation application, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the assessee’s previous counsel failed to keep the track of the assessee’s first-appeal before CIT(A) and did not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A) and even the counsel was not aware of the impugned order which was passed

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)

13 of condonation application, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the assessee’s previous counsel failed to keep the track of the assessee’s first-appeal before CIT(A) and did not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A) and even the counsel was not aware of the impugned order which was passed

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

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