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

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

3) of sub-section (4),\nif it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not\npresenting it within that period.”\nThus, the section 253(5) empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after the\nexpiry of prescribed time, subject of course that the ITAT is satisfied that\nthere was a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed\ntime

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

3) of sub-section (4),\nif it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not\npresenting it within that period.”\n\nThus, the section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal\nafter expiry of prescribed time, subject of course that the ITAT is satisfied\nthat there was “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within

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

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 and proceed with hearing. Page 3

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

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

3. Ld. AR firstly carried us to the above condonation-application according to which the assessee handed over the impugned orders to his previous counsel for filing appeals before ITAT but there was a lapse on the part of previous counsel in not only filing appeals. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearances before

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

3. Ld. AR firstly carried us to the above condonation-application according to which the assessee handed over the impugned orders to his previous counsel for filing appeals before ITAT but there was a lapse on the part of previous counsel in not only filing appeals. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearances before

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

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

253 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for\nsake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by\nthe order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-\n25/1071072719(1) dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)\nu/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the\n\"Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a\njudicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5.\nLd. AR next submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 provides \"The order of the Commissioner

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a\njudicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5. Ld. AR next submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay and decided to condone it to ensure substantial justice. The appeal was admitted and the matter was remanded.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "54B", "250(6)", "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

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

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

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) of the Act, condoned the delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "263", "143(3