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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. \"Sufficient cause\" is a condition\nprecedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After\nhaving gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, the\nBench has noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory\nprovision is not complied with and that delay

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

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

condoning inordinate delays of more than 96 days in filing appeal. The expression sufficient or good reason or sufficient cause implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. The party should show that besides

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 'Sufficient cause” is a condition\nprecedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After\nhaving gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, the\nBench has noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory\nprovision is not complied with and that delay

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

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)

condone the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal. 34. The Special Leave Petition, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.” 14. Here, the record would reveal that during pendency of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), the applicant remained non compliant despite issuance of four notices issued under section

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR 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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR 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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

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)

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days