M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

4. We find from record that ITA No. 413/Ind/2007 is barred by limitation by 5 days whereas CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 are barred by 6 years and 3 days. 5. In respect of ITA Nos. 413/Ind/2007 the learned counsel for the assessee vide letter dated July 7, 2007 has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that “The said

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

4. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. As far as the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, it is settled law that the Court quasi-judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

4 [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] No.26127/2018) on 27.8.2018 as relied by the Ld. DR is concerned, the facts are distinguishable because the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not condone the delay of the appeal of the Revenue due to misleading statement given before the Hon’ble Court. In the present case, the contention of the assessee

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 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

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

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

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

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

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

4. Accordingly, in suppression of earlier Circular/Instruction issued in this regard, and with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by such trusts or institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form No. 108 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not explained the delay even before March, 2020 when due to covid pandemic there was a lock down and limitation was extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused