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 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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 263. While\nthe assessee cited non-receipt of the PCIT's order email,\nreduced staff due to cessation of business, and the COVID\npandemic, the Tribunal found these reasons not bona fide.\nIn para 10, the Tribunal emphasized that while merit\nshould generally override technicalities, there is no mandate\nto condone delay in every case. Courts must examine\nwhether

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

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

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

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

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

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay, admitted the appeals, and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "143(3) r.w.s 254", "147 r.w.s. 144", "144 r.w.s. 254", "13

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

section 249(2) of the\nIT Act, the same is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated\non merits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off\"\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal\non 02.02.2026 when

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

section 249(3) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) has discretionary power to condone delay in filing appeal before him, if the assessee has sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. Such power should be exercised with a view to do justice to all the parties. We are of the view that the reasons narrated

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay,\nadmit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n5. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee “Late Shri George Jacob” was an employee of “Bharat Heavy\nElectricals Limited, Bhopal”. For AY 2012-13, the assessee did not file

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay which had occurred\nwhile filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee\nherein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his\njob he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein\nPage 9 of 22\nis not gaining anything by causing the delay

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay which had occurred while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee herein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his job he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein Page 9 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys

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