SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant is to explain the delay w.r.t. the period of the delay in chronological

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant is to explain the delay w.r.t. the period of the delay in chronological

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

establish the truth of those recitals,\notherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either\nexecuted or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant is to explain the\ndelay w.r.t. the period of the delay in chronological

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

permanent registration on 16.12.2022 which is after the extended due date. No power is given under the Act to CIT(E) to condone the delay and therefore the application filed by the assessee is rejected as non-maintainable for which reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in case of Bishnupur Public Education Institute 139 Taxman.com

AMRITAM PRASADAM FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (E), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hearing.” 3.1 At The Outset Of Hearing, The Bench Observed That There Is Delay Of 306 Days In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayers & The Assessee To This Effect Also Filed An Affidavit :-

condone the delay in filling the appeals by the assessee. 4. Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assesee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- “1. The applicant filed online application online on 19.03.2022 in Form No. 10AB for seeking exemption

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)

permanently residint at House No. J-07 Ridhi Sidhi, Sri Ganganagar state on solemn affirmation as under:- 1. That I have move an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the Asstt. Year 2017-18. 2. That facts narrated in the application and reasons for delay in filing of appeal

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

permanently shifted to Bijainnagar and started a small saree shop. On receipt of assessment order and appellate order whereby a huge demand was created against him he went into depression. He, thus, could not make decision whether to file appeal before Hon'ble Bench or not. By the time his family and friends could make him realize the necessity

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

permanently shifted to Bijainnagar and started a small saree shop. On receipt of assessment order and appellate order whereby a huge demand was created against him he went into depression. He, thus, could not make decision whether to file appeal before Hon'ble Bench or not. By the time his family and friends could make him realize the necessity

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

permanent registration on 02.09.2023 & filed the Provisional Registration on 01/03/2023 which is after the extended due date. No power is given under the Act to CIT(E) to condone the delay and therefore the application filed by the assessee is rejected as non- maintainable for which reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in case

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

permanent\nemployee of the appellant company namely, M/s SHIV VEGPRO\nPRIVATE LIMITED, Kota, was assigned the task to collect the appeal\nprepared from the counsel at Jaipur, to get it signed and to ensure filing\nof the same in time. Shri Sushil Mittal was fully conversant with the\naffairs of the above assessee in the office of M/s SHIV VEGPRO

SAMYAK GYAN PRACHAR PRASAR TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

condoned. 3.1 During the course of hearing, it is noted that the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal )Rules, 1963 seeking permission to produce additional evidence as to the case of the assessee. The additional evidence as mentioned in the application is reproduced as under:- ‘’1. The Appellant above-named

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

BG PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay in late filing of the appeals 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 inclined to decide the appeal on its merits. 3.1 Apropos to the ground

BG PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay in late filing of the appeals 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 inclined to decide the appeal on its merits. 3.1 Apropos to the ground

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 314 days 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). 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, along with one other person sold and purchased immovable property in cash

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 569 days in view of the decision of Hon’ble 8 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the issue the brief facts

GOVIND LAL CHOUDHARY,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

permanent address. 2. The Order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) came late to my knowledge and therefore I could not take timely decision to file appeal against it. 3. When I approached my counsel then only I got to know about the available remedy of filing further Appeal before your goodself. In the above process, filing