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

35 years Page 7 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 which shows that the counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR’s assertion, he submitted that the previous counsel was regularly handling assessee’s matters uptill the year 2020. In such a situation

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

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

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

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

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

35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal due to delay in gathering the necessary documents. Therefore it is requested to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal” 10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other

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

35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal due to delay in gathering the necessary documents. Therefore it is requested to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal” 10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other

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

35, filed a\nletter seeking condonation of delay which reads as follows\"\n\"It is pleaded that the authorised representative of the appellant\nfailed to file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the\nlearned AO within the time limit prescribed under section

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

35 stating "That the accountant of the assessee was not available. "The reason for delay in filing of appeal given by the assessee is not at all sufficient and reasonable cause and the illness of the accountant is not a sufficient & reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. The appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented

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

35, has been stated to be 01/04/2022 and the appeal memo is not accompanied with any petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the impugned appeal. As per the provisions of Sec. 249 (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

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

35 ) shailendrasolanki132@gmail.com . Subsequently, against the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Act dated 30th November, 2023, the second appeal before the tribunal against such order has been filed in form 36 by I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the assessee , through his Ld. AR , under same email id shailendrasolanki132@gmail.com , on 12th December

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

35. Thus, the appellant was very much aware about the assessment order since 30.01.2018. The appellant is supposed to explain a valid reason for delay so that this office could have considered condoning the delay. However, the reason provided by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay of 669 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 270AA of the Act completely by the assessee. The Ld.\nDR has placed on reliance on Kerala High Court judgment\nreported in (2024) 158 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala) IBS\nSoftware (P) Ltd v/s UOI. Photo copy of judgment cited by Ld.\nAR of Chennai Bench of ITAT and Jodhpur Bench of ITAT were\nfurnished under a compilation from page

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

Section 270AA of the Act completely by the assessee. The Ld. DR has placed on reliance on Kerala High Court judgment reported in (2024) 158 taxmann.com 209 (Kerala) – IBS Software (P) Ltd v/s UOI. Photo copy of judgment cited by Ld. AR of Chennai Bench of ITAT and Jodhpur Bench of ITAT were furnished under a compilation from page

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

section 249(2) of the\nIT Act, the same is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated\non merits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off\"\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal\non 02.02.2026 when

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

35 filed to CIT(A).\nDespite this, the notices of hearing as well as order of first-appeal were sent\nby CIT(A) on the e-mail, (ii) that neither the notices nor the order of first-\nappeal have been served physically upon the assessee, and (iii) that the\nassessee logged income-tax portal on 1st May, 2024 for filing

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

CONDONATION OF DELAY\nMay it Please this Hon'ble Tribunal,\n1. That, the present Appeal bearing Acknowledgement No. 1800032236 has\nbeen preferred by the Assessee, Smt. Kusum George Jacob (PAN:\nAAWPJ0194Q), being the legal heir of Late Shri George Jacob, under\nSection 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), assailing the Order\ndated 18.06.2024 passed by the National

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

35. The assessee further claims that when the penalty-appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) vide a subsequent order dated 24.01.2024, the assessee approached earlier counsel and trusted that the counsel shall take an appropriate measure in the matters but the earlier counsel still did not take suitable action which came to assessee’s notice subsequently when recovery proceedings were