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

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. 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. 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

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,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. 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. 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. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), 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. 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

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

condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (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, negligence and want of due diligence