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

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWERC vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

2)\nThe respondent\n(3)\nCIT\n(4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee-trust filed two appeals against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. There

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

2 SCC 387\nwherein the guiding principles for condonation of delay were laid down. He\nsubmitted that the assessee's present case satisfies the principles set out by\nHon'ble Supreme Court. He also referred a recent judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 21.03.2025 titled Inder Singh Vs. The State of\nMadhya Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Civil

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the\nITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient\ncause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of\nthe landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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

condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate- Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 sec 106." 9. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

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

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay under section\n119(2)(b) of the Act which are pending as on date of issue of this\nCircular\".\nThat despite above measure to resolve the grievance of the\nassessee's, the assessee company herein did not took any steps\nas enshrined in the circulars (supra) and hence the plea of the\nassessee that since they comply

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 3 years beyond the prescribed time limit.", "held

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

5 of 19 ITANo.199/Ind/2024 Akshay Academy be allowed which was also realized by the assesse while making a fresh claim before the AO during the assessment proceedings which is referred by the AO in para 2.2 as under: “2.2 Further, the assessee vide his letter uploaded on 30.1.2021 has stated that Deduction under section 10(23C) (iiiad) is claimed incorrectly

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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 under the existing provisions of the Act. The CCslT/DGsIT shall examine the following while deciding such applications – (i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub·section (I) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence/s; (ii) where delay

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay

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

2,425 days which is highly inordinate. The law mandates filing of appeal within a prescribed period only and even one day delay is objectionable. Ld. DR submitted that a small delay of few days or even few months can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown but the revenue is seriously against condonation of delay of several years-months