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

condonation of delay. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since

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

delay under Section 5 of the Act of 1963, it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] issue of condonation

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such a discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest the range may be un-condonable

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

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

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

delay of 191 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause is attributed as prescribed u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5

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

delay of 191 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause is attributed as prescribed u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5

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

5. We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced the Page 3 of 8 reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay in para 2 of the impugned order as under: “2. In this case as per the facts recorded in the Form

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

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

section 119(2)(b). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "Considering the hardship faced by the assessee, the CBDT issued Circular No. 7/2018, authorizing Commissioner of Income- tax, to admit belated application in Form No. 10 in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17 which were filed belatedly Thus, the finding of the Id. CIT(A) that

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

section 119 of the Act, hereby directs that the Chief Commissioners of Income· tax (CCs/T) / Directors General of income tax (DGsIT) are authorised to deal with such applications of condonation of delay pending before the Board, upon transfer of such applications by the Board, and decide such applications on merits, in accordance with the law. 5

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

5 months in filing the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has recorded the reasons as explained by the assessee in Form-35 at page No.12 of the impugned order as under: “Grounds/Reasons for Condonation of Delay: In this regard, the relevant portion Column 15 of the Form 35 filed by the Appellant on 03/10/2022 for Condonation of Delay

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

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

delay of 7 years & 104 days was not condoned by Bench. 5. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. At first, we refer section

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

5 of 10 ABDE ALI ITA No. 647&648/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 came to know of about the impugned order when logged on to the portal. Upon logging in the said “impugned order” was found. It was submitted that delay has happened due to bonafide reason and sufficient cause is shown. The delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay

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

5 of 10 ABDE ALI ITA No. 647&648/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18 came to know of about the impugned order when logged on to the portal. Upon logging in the said “impugned order” was found. It was submitted that delay has happened due to bonafide reason and sufficient cause is shown. The delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay

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

5 3. There is a delay of 1003 days in filing present appeal and assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The assesse has explained the cause of delay in the application as under: “From: Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe Date: 24.05.2012 Address: Village, Mathela, Dist- Khandwa (M.P.) PAN No. BFTPS9031N