M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

12| 22 approaching the court at a belated stage\nsimply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.\n21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.6, where\nthe High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703\ndays, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held\nthat the High Court failed to exercise

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

12 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT considering the condonation delay application along with Affidavit arbitrarily dismiss the appeal of assessee. Relevant para of ld. CIT(A) observation is reproduced as under— “5.8 In view of the foregoing discussion, factual matrix and the judicial precedents, I find that no case has been made out by the assessee for existence of sufficient

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that a delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section

A BLISS OF CREATOR SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

12| 22 approaching the court at a belated stage\nsimply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.\n21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.6, where\nthe High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703\ndays, had allowed the applications for codonation of delay, this Court held\nthat the High Court failed to exercise

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

condonation of delay for furnishing the same late has been furnished. 4.3 The learned AO also contested that furnishing audit report in Form No.10B within due time is mandatory for availing benefit of section 11 & 12

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section of the I.T. Act, 1961—Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97— Rectification application was rejected by AO—CIT(A) upheld order of AO— Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)—Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

condone the Vivek Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO (E) dealy in filling the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee relates to the charging of the assessee trust income at MMR. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that since

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

delay in filing the present appeal. 12. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

delay in filing the present appeal. 12. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone

RAM DEV DAIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-1, JHUNJHUNU

Bench: The Tribunal. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Contents Of The Application While Orally Making Out A Case Of There Being

condonation of delay. 15. That the calculation chart of period of delay is as follows:- 9 Ram Dev Daiya 16. That the Other Reasons:- (i). Assessee is a retired salaried, Senior Citizen. So, the demand of Rs. 3,15,998/ is very huge amount caused hardship. (ii). The demand raised without following the Natural Justice and the addition is without

RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay in filing of this appeal. 12. As regards the ground that father of the assessee was facing court cases, on complaints and FIRs got registered by his partner, copy of the order dated 12.03.2025, would reveal that father of the assessee was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 12.03.2025, passed by our own Hon’ble High

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal