C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

condonation of several years as has happened in\npresent cases.\n(ii)\nReferring to Para 1 of affidavit of counsel, he submitted that the Counsel is\nstating to be in professional practice for last 35 years which shows that the\ncounsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld.\nAR's assertion, he submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

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

30 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi) / [2013] 213 Taxman 65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in 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

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

30 days. The\nfacts are therefore distinguishable.\n2. The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgment of M.P.\nHigh Court in case of Shri Neel Kumar Ajmera vs. Pr. CIT\nIndore-1 dated 01.04.2025 in ITA No.01 of 2025 where the\ndivision Bench has held that delay was due to appellant\nresiding at a place for 15 years

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

2 of affidavit, the counsel has averred that he was dealing assessee’s income-tax affairs and Para 4, he has further averred that the impugned order was handed over to him for filing appeal before ITAT; that he gave order to office staff for preparation and submission of appeal but due to ignorance on the part of his staff

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

2 of affidavit, the counsel has averred that he was dealing assessee’s income-tax affairs and Para 4, he has further averred that the impugned order was handed over to him for filing appeal before ITAT; that he gave order to office staff for preparation and submission of appeal but due to ignorance on the part of his staff

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

delay of 394days [424 days (from 25.09.2023 to\n22.11.2024) 30days] i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30\ndays, whereas, the appellant was required to file\nappeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2)\non receipt of order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation

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

30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned. 12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence

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

30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned. 12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence

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

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2 reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3 Hon. CIT(A) erred

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

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

2), an appeal before the CIT(A) is to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of notice of demand. Further, the delay may be condoned only when the CIT(A) is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the due date. 4 Gorelal Parmar Without prejudice to the above observations and defect, powers

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

30,930/- consequence to misreported income (4-5) Penalty leviable at 200% 4,61,860/- Penalty leviable (Rounded off) 4,61,860/- (Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty only) This order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad as per section 274(2) of the Income

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

30,930/-\nPenalty leviable at 200%\n4,61,860/-\nPenalty leviable (Rounded off)\n4,61,860/-\n(Rupees: Four Lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and sixty\nonly)\nThis order has been passed after obtaining the prior approval\nfrom the Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad\nas per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter

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

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2 SCC 387\nthat whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed\nto each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal

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

30 days of the receipt of order. However the assessee sought condonation of delay in preferring first appeal on ground that the assessee was a commercial pilot and his source of income is salary income which he receives from time to time from various airlines. That the assessee subsequently came to know from Income Tax e-filing portal that