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 Act of 1963, it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] issue of condonation of delay, In paras 14

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

condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section 12A of the Act and whether the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. The question whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is always a question of fact as has been held by two Division Bench judgments of this Court: (i) CIT v. Parma Nand

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

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

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

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

condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. 14

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

condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. 14

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

14 JAN ZUZ8\nAt Sr. No.2854/2026\nBEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE\nApplication of Condonation of Delay\n289\n12.02.2026\nAssessee\nAnil Turakhia\n46, Loha Mandi\nIndore-452001503\nAppeal No\nITA 594/IND/2025\nA.Υ.\n2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order

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

condonation of delay given by appellant :- “That due to some unavoidable circumstances appeal could not be filed on time. Hence, it is requested that the appeal of the appellant may Page 2 of 14 Shri Amit Vyas, Ujjain ITA No. 510/Ind/2023 - AY 2015-16 please be accepted and for this act of kindness appellant would be grateful to our Honour

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

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

14 JAN ZUZB\nAt Sr. No.2854/2026\nBEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE\nApplication of Condonation of Delay\n289\n12.02.2026\nAssessee\nAnil Turakhia\n46, Loha Mandi\nIndore-452001503\nAppeal No\nITA 594/IND/2025\nA.Υ.\n2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order

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

condoning the delay, despite having sufficient reasons. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154, but the same was pending before the CPC. As there was no fruitful results received from the CPC, the assessee filed statutory first appeal with delay

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

14 JAN 2028\nAt Sr. No. 2854/2026\nBEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE\nApplication of Condonation of Delay\nAssessee\nAnil Turakhia\n46, Loha Mandi\nIndore-452001503\nAppeal No\nITA 594/IND/2025\nA.Υ.\n2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

condone the delay on the ground that the assessee has not explained sufficient cause for inordinate delay of 3189 days. Ld. AR has referred to the affidavit filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) explaining the cause of delay placed at page no.13 & 14 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has explained the reasons of delay