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)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore\nPage 19 of 19", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed two appeals against the order of CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The appeals

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

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 prescribed\ntime

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

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

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

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 5

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

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

5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 2 of 9 Shri Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi ITA No. 151/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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

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

RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL SARATHE,KHANDWA vs. ITO-I KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the time limit prescribed in the law. Hence, assessee is applying here for condonation of delay for the same based on merits of the case. Further, based on the various judicial wordings by the apex court, it was held that in case of limitation issues the legislature has Page

MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nPage 5 of 5\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) after a delay of 765 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving notices and being