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

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 a prescribed period only and even one day delay is objectionable. He submitted that small delay of a few days or even a few months can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown

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

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 a prescribed period only and even one day delay is objectionable. He submitted that small delay of a few days or even a few months can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown

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

section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, failed to correct the jurisdictions error of the appellate court. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Civil Judge Amalner (the appellate Court) condone the delay of seven days in filing the appeal, restore the appeal to the file

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

condone the delay in Registration of the Trust. However, the CBDT has extended the above time limits by invoking section 119 of the Act by issuing circular No. 8 of 2022, dated 31-03- 2022 extending the time limit upto 30th September, 2022. It is thereafter by circular No. 6

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

6 of 25 This time-limit fixed for the approaching the Court in different situation is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform in to a good cause.”” N. Balakrishnan vs. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SC 124 (SC) wherein it was observed that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. 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

section 249 of the Income Tax Act. Meanwhile the appellant was of the opinion that his case was being duly handled with due diligence and care by his authorized representative. It was only when the penalty notices were furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate response was fled during the assessment proceedings and no appeal was filed

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

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

6. In the instant case, order u/s 154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The AO has in his order has stated that the assessee has filed a belated return on 30.03.2018 for the said assessment year, however, has not fled the audit report in Form 108. Accordingly

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

6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of 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

6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay

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

6. In the context of para·5 above, the CCslT/DGsIT while deciding such applications for condonation of delay in furnishing return of income, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant's case is a fit case for condonation under the existing provisions of the Act. The CCslT/DGsIT shall examine the following while deciding such applications – (i) the delay in furnishing

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

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

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

condonation of such delay has not been submitted. In a computerized environment, the return are filed on line and the relevant order is also available online and sent by e -mail. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for having been filed beyond the time allowed under section 249(2).It is also seen from the communication from CPC dated 11.06.2013 filed

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

Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5.2 Thus due to the reasons of not filing the application for condonation of delay the CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is pertinent to note that CIT(A) has not issued any notice to the assessee much less a show cause notice before

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay involving refund claims exceeding Rs. 50,00,000 would continue to be processed by Central Board of Direct Taxes, both for acceptance and rejection. 4. No fresh application for claim of refund will be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim is made

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning the delay. 6. We have gone through the files on records and materials placed before us. The return of income filed by the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2018-19 was processed under section

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