SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay petition received on 14-05-\n2025, contended that the order of the CIT(A) remained in the possession of\nthe Secretary of the Assessee Society, and, therefore, the appeal could not be\nfiled within time. However, in a subsequent affidavit, dated 30-07-2025, the\nAssessee Society has now furnished a revised explanation stating that the\nSecretary

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

Appeal is dismissed

delay was not credible, as there were contradictions in the timeline provided by the previous counsel and evidence suggested the assessee was also negligent. Citing previous judgments and the principle of sufficient cause, the Tribunal rejected the condonation application.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "253

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned on ground of sufficient cause.\n4.4 We are of the view that delay of 3 years is abnormal and\nassessee has not shown reasonable cause.\n4.5 By virtue to section 253

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condones delay and accordingly left\nit to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by\nassessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condones delay and accordingly left\nit to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by\nassessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "144", "69A", "271A", "271B", "271(1)(d)", "253", "249(3)", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delays in filing the present appeal and the first appeal before CIT(A) are condonable

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condones delay and accordingly left it to the\nwisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee\nand in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is\nfound to have a \"sufficient cause\" for delay in filing present appeal. We find\nthat section 253

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay of 1,731 days should not be condoned. Ld. DR prayed to\ndismiss present appeal.\n5. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the case\nrecord.\n6. Section 253

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condones delay and accordingly left\nit to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by\nassessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253

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

delay was condoned.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "69", "147", "246A", "249(2)", "249(3)", "274(2)" ], "issues

MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay, citing \"sufficient cause\" and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was credible.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "253

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay could not be condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "253", "143(3)", "270A", "274", "270AA", "270AA(1)", "270AA(2)", "156", "246A

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation\nadvanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on\nrecord, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing\npresent appeal. We find that section 253