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

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

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

28-03-2022. The appeal is filed on 04-11-2022 beyond the stipulated time for filing appeal prescribed u/s249(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. Along with the Form 35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal

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

28-03-2022. The appeal is filed on 04-11-2022 beyond the stipulated time for filing appeal prescribed u/s249(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. Along with the Form 35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

condone the delay. Appeal\nadmitted and taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR has placed on the record of this tribunal PB\ncontaining pages 1 to 67.A one pager chronological table.\nITR-7 for AY 17-18 bearing no:\n567739291300318. Our\nattention was invited to PB Page 23 which is an “order u/s\n154 of the act" dated

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

28 days. The appeal against the “impugned assessment order” is required to be filed within 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

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

28 days. The appeal against the “impugned assessment order” is required to be filed within 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

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

condonation of delay and submitted that the assesse has not explained reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal and merely shifted the blame to the counsel. Thus Ld. DR has submitted that there is an inordinate delay even after limitation period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which expired on 30th May 2022 whereas the present appeal

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

Section 143(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal on 24th June, 2022 against the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2021 therefore, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay

SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble\Nand\Nshri B.M. Biyani\Nita No.510/Ind/2025\N Assessment Year:2012-13\Nsanjay Mukati,\N225, Tanki Chowk,\Nbijalpur,\Nindore\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nito 2(1)\Nindore\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Bcepm6423N\Nassessee By Shri Rishikesh Mishra, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N11.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N23.12.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 13.02.2025 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By Learned\Nito-2(4), Indore [“Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The\Nact"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2012-13, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal\Non The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).\Nsanjay Mukati\Nita No. 510/Ind/2025 - Ay 2012-13\N2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 31\Ndays & Therefore Time-Barred. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The\Nassessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By\Naffidavit; The Affidavit Filed By Assessee Is Scanned & Re-Produced For An\Nimmediate Reference:\Nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\Nएक सौ रुपये\Nrs.100\None\Nhundred Rupees\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ngov\Nof\Nindia Non Noted Registered\Nमध्य प्रदेश Madhya Pradesh\Notary\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14484\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ned\Nserial No. .......\Ndate..

28 MAY 2025\nADVOCATE & NOTARY\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nSanjay Mukati\nITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13\n3. The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which are self-\nexplanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld.\nDR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and\naccordingly left it to the wisdom

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

28,007/-. The case of assessee was taken for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 after making certain disallowances and determining total income at Rs. 18,65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition

DILIP KUMAR JAIN,MANDIDEEP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAISEN, RAISEN

Appeals are allowed for statistical

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

28,007/-. The case of assessee was taken for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 after making certain disallowances and determining total income at Rs. 18,65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari