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

4 and 62433/20245 are\nallowed.\n21. To offset, to some extent, the hardship of the appellant in\npursuing his legal remedies, we deem it appropriate that costs of\nRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) be paid by the respondent to the\nappellant, subject to which the delay in filing the Second Appeal shall\nbe treated as condoned. Let such payment

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

Appeal is dismissed

4)\n(5)\n(6)\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore\nPage 22 of 22", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal after a significant delay of approximately 7 years and 14 days. The delay was attributed

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4

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 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. 4

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4

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

4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee’s prayer with following contentions: (i) He submitted that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days in one case and 6 years & 83 days 7 years in other case. He described these delays as “inordinate long delays”. He submitted that the law mandates filing of appeal within

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

4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee’s prayer with following contentions: (i) He submitted that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days in one case and 6 years & 83 days 7 years in other case. He described these delays as “inordinate long delays”. He submitted that the law mandates filing of appeal within

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

4) SCC 363 and has contended that the\nconcepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented\napproach", "substantial justice" can not be employed to\njettison the substantial law of limitation, Especially in cases\nwhere the Court concludes that there is no justification for\nthe delay Whilst considering applications for condonation of\ndelay under Section

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condone the\nAkhilesh Kumar Patel\nITA No. 627/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2018-19\ndelay and admit this appeal. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the\nwisdom of Bench without raising any serious objection. We have considered\nthe explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or\nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a sufficient

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

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

condonation of delay in furnishing return of income and to treat such returns as 'returns furnished within the due date under sub- .' .. section (I) of section 139 of the Act stating that delay in furnishing return of income was caused due to delay in getting the accounts audited under respective State Laws. 4

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

4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that CIT(A) has considered the reasons explained by the assessee in Form-35 which are not found to be reasonable cause of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal and consequentially the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that

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

4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that CIT(A) has considered the reasons explained by the assessee in Form-35 which are not found to be reasonable cause of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal and consequentially the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that

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 the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.2 In so far as merits of the case are concerned it was submitted that the impugned assessment order is under section 144 of the Act. There was only apart compliance on 03.12.2021 which was covid period. ROI was not filed in response to notice dated 31.03.2021 within

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 the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.2 In so far as merits of the case are concerned it was submitted that the impugned assessment order is under section 144 of the Act. There was only apart compliance on 03.12.2021 which was covid period. ROI was not filed in response to notice dated 31.03.2021 within

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

4 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\nFurther Reliance is placed on the following judgments:-\n1. Neel Kumar Ajmera Alias Nilesh Ajmera vs PCIT, Indore\n[2025] 174 taxmann.com 24\nWherein it was held that the length of delay is immaterial once 'sufficient cause' is\nestablished, and the delay deserves to be condoned