DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him. 2

condone the delay 285 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

JAGDISH PRASHAD PANCHAL,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the appeal in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 45,20,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of old currency having been deposited by the Appellant which includes

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

condone the delay 326 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

demonetization\nand on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit,\nthereby violated cardinal principle of taxation.\n7\nThat both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in\nestimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit\nrate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of\nbusiness.\n8\nThat the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

demonetization\nand on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit,\nthereby violated cardinal principle of taxation.\n7\nThat both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in\nestimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit\nrate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of\nbusiness.\n8\nThat the appellant reserves his right

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has e-filed his return of income on 09.03.2018 vide ack No. 433729340090318 showing total income of Rs. 6,58,230/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1460/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. Pan No.: Ahppg 4958 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time At Cit Level As He Got Sick & Mentally Upset Due To Deep Financial Pressure As He Was Suffering From Financial Hardship & Seeked Condonation Of Delay Of 38 Days In Filing The Appeal But His Appeal Was Dismissed By Cit(A) Without Dealing On The Basis Of Merits Of The Case As Cit Sustained The Arbitrarily Disallowance By Ld. Ao Of Lump Sum Addition Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Out Of Other Expenses Without Any Basis. Also Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law By Arbitrarily Disallowing Lump Sum Amount Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Without Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Violation Of The Principle Of Nature Justice.”

demonetization which is uncontrollable in the hands of the assessee. Thus, it should be considered as a sufficient cause and condonation of delay

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A) being unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be rolled back. 3. On facts and in the circumstance Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the summary addition of Rs. 1,98,67,320/- without considering the obvious facts emerging from the bank statements available on records

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

SHRI JITENDRA BEHL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his original return of income on e-filing portal for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,92,300/-. The case was selected for Limited SCRUTINY assessment under CASS. Notice

MOHIT AGARWAL,SIKAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

demonetization period was out of opening cash in hand available 3 Mohit Agarwal vs. ITO in the books of account and disclosed in the ITR filed for the AY 2016-17, past savings available with the assessee and cash sales made during the year. (iii)On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

GOVIND JEE,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay so made in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee simultaneously submitted that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and ld. CIT(A) and thus his case may be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity to contest the case before

KAMAL SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding the assessee had not submitted any new evidence or explanation to justify the nature and source of credit