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

condone delay. The\nexplanation offered is general in nature, lacks\ncorroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does\nnot inspire confidence that the delay was due to\nreasons entirely beyond the appellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 249(3) r.w.s. 253(5) of the Act and the decision of\nKalpana Narware\nITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18\nHon'ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay

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

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

3. The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

3) CIT\n(4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore\nPage 8 of 8", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being barred by limitation, as the delay in filing could not be condoned. The assessee claimed that

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 249(2). Thus, this is clearly a case of lapses, which are directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant. 5.10 This is not a case of change in law which is beneficial to the appellant and hence the delay in seeking such remedy may be condoned in the furtherance of substantial justice. Therefore, there

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

condone small delay of 9 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on receipt of information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 24,65,550/- in Bank A/c during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 under consideration, issued notice dated

AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL,SHAHDOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

3 to 9 of same, Ld.\nAR submitted that the assessee was searching counsel for dealing his case\nand initially he contacted one counsel in the month of January, 2024 who\ninformed that he cannot file appeal as he may be selected for empanelled\nadvocate at High Court of Madhya Pradesh for Income-tax Department. He\nadvised assessee

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

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 with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay

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

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 with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3189 days for which no cogent reason has been given. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

NETINK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinetink Technologies Dcit/Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Behind Congress Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aaecn4127C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

delay of 577 days without any evidence in support could not be condoned. 5.1.6 Further, the language used in section 249(3

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

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 have been conferred upon the undersigned under Section 249(3

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

3. At first, we extract the relevant paras in which the CIT(A) has rejected assessee’s first-appeal on technical ground of delayed filing: “2. As per declaration in Form No. 35, the date of service of the impugned order and the demand notice is 30.01.2018. There was delay of 669 days in filing this appeal. Grounds for condonation

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

condone delay. The explanation\noffered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence\nbeyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence\nthat the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the\nappellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3. On grounds of equity, notices were issued to the Appellant on 01.02.2021. 04.07.2022, 13.07.2022, 24.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 in which hearing was fixed on 16.02.2021, 11.07.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022 and 11.08.2022 respectively but the appellant has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. 4.According to Section 249