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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this\ncase, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

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

Appeal is dismissed

9 of 22\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA No. 396/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13\nappeal\" before him. That means, the previous counsel has made a mistake.\nHe has wrongly picked the date of \"27.04.2015” as the “date of passing of\nimpugned order” and stated another date of 10.05.2015 to support\nassessee's case. Since it is a serious point, we asked

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 of 2023 dated 24- 05-2023 clarified as follows

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

9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal is filed

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

9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal is filed

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

9 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page 10 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Ld. AR submitted that despite such robust systems in assessee- company, it is quite strange that the assessee did not enquire status of appeals from counsel. This shows that

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

9 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Page 10 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 Ld. AR submitted that despite such robust systems in assessee- company, it is quite strange that the assessee did not enquire status of appeals from counsel. This shows that

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

section 144/144B of the Act and a part reply is on record which is reproduced by the Ld. AO in the “impugned assessment order”. In so far as “impugned order” is concerned the dismissal is not on merits but on account of delay of 543 days in preferring the first appeal. In these facts and circumstances we deem

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

section 144/144B of the Act and a part reply is on record which is reproduced by the Ld. AO in the “impugned assessment order”. In so far as “impugned order” is concerned the dismissal is not on merits but on account of delay of 543 days in preferring the first appeal. In these facts and circumstances we deem

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5.\nLd. AR next submitted that the section

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5. Ld. AR next submitted that the section

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5.\nLd. AR next submitted that the section

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

section 154 to allow the set off the loss to the business income was accepted; cannot be a sufficient cause to condone delay.” Page 4 of 9

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

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

section 249(2) of the\nIT Act, the same is not admitted.\n4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for\nstatistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated\non merits.\n5. In result, the appeal is disposed off\"\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal\non 02.02.2026 when

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\nPage 6 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n5.\nLd. AR next submitted that the section

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

section 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for non-representing the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.” 6.3 Further

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay which had occurred\nwhile filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee\nherein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his\njob he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein\nPage 9 of 22\nis not gaining anything by causing the delay