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

condone the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.2 In so far as merits of the case are concerned it was submitted that the impugned assessment order is under section 144

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

144 r.w.s. 254\n2.\nSince these appeals involve identical facts and issues, they were heard\ntogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.\n3.\nThe registry has informed that these appeals have been filed after\ndelay of days as mentioned in the last column of the Table in earlier Para No.\n1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations of limitation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5) of the Income-tax Act", "250(6) of the Income-tax Act", "143(3)", "144

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

144 r.w.s. 254\n2. Since these appeals involve identical facts and issues, they were heard\ntogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.\n3. The registry has informed that these appeals have been filed after\ndelay of days as mentioned in the last column of the Table in earlier Para No.\n1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal as well as the first appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances presented, including the pandemic and issues with legal representation. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5.2 Thus due to the reasons of not filing the application for condonation of delay the CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is pertinent to note that CIT(A) has not issued any notice to the assessee much less a show cause notice before

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that certain documents were presented by the assessee's representative, which were not filed before the AO or examined by the CIT(A).", "result": "Allowed for statistical purpose", "sections": [ "147", "144

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the return income of Rs. 1,25,550/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition on information obtained during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) in the case

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

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

UMESH KUMAR MOTWANI,INDORE vs. CIT(A), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 144. The assessee's appeal was delayed due to various personal reasons, including ill-health, family challenges, financial difficulties, and issues with their previous authorized representative. The assessment proceedings themselves were also significantly delayed.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

PRATHMIK KRSHI SHAK SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT KHATEDAKALA,KHATEDAKALA vs. CIT, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani\Nand\Nshri Paresh M. Joshi\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024\N Assessment Year:2018-19\Nprathmik Krshi Shak\Nnfac\Nsahkari Sanstha Maryadit,\Ndelhi\Nkhatedakala,\Nsarra, Distt-Sarra,\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\Nbetul\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aacap7241F\Nassessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 24.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 17.03.2023 Passed By Learned\Nassessment Unit Of Income-Tax Department [“Ao”] U/S 147 R.W.S.144 &\N144B Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2018-19,\Nthe Assessee Has Filed This Appeal On The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal\Nmemo (Form No. 36).\Nprathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024 - Ay 2018-19\N2. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On\N16.04.2024 But The Same Came To The Knowledge Of Assessee On 17.07.2024\Nand Therefore The Assessee Has Mentioned The \"Date Of Service\" As\N“17.07.2024\" In Form No.

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a 'sufficient cause' due to the non-receipt of notices and the order. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity for proper representation.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

144 read with section 144B was passed by the AO. 6. Thus, it is trite in law that the appellant must show that he was diligent in taking proper steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence. It is for the appellant to explain the reason for the delay and it is not the function of authorities

RAVINDRA JAISWAL,BADWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SENDHWA, SENDWA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4. Ld. AR for assessee next submitted that the assessment-order was\npassed by AO u/s 144

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condonation petition is not supported with documentary evidences, defective memo was issued to the appellant and he was asked to substantiate his delay in filing the appeal for 2037 days. In response to the notice, the appellant filed another submission, which is reproduced below: BEFORE THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS Page 6 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condonation petition is not supported with documentary evidences, defective memo was issued to the appellant and he was asked to substantiate his delay in filing the appeal for 2037 days. In response to the notice, the appellant filed another submission, which is reproduced below: BEFORE THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS Page 6 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

144 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\n- The appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing\nthe appeal against the assessment order dated\n06.03.2023, which was admittedly appealable up to\n06.04.2023. The delay has been attributed to the\nappellant's lack of education and unawareness of the\nreassessment proceedings initiated under Section

KUNAL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay of 193 days in filing the first appeal, acknowledging the assessee's cogent reasons. The Tribunal also agreed with the consensus of both parties to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144