DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

delay\nof 2 days in filling this cross objection is condoned.\n\n4\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n5. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, M/s\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, is a firm assessed as such,\nand filed its return of income

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 148A. 20. In the given situation, when AR for the applicant has candidly pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that for raising such a legal ground no cross-objection was required to be filed, and that he could straightway argue the same in the appeal filed by the department, we deem it a fit case to condone

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

condone the delay. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that information was received from DDIT(Inv.)-III, Jaipur vide letter No. 3303 dated 22.03.2019 that cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000/- in State Bank of India had been taken place in his account. The assessee had filed his ITR declaring total income

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay of two days in filing\nthe appeal by the assessee is condoned.\n5.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:\n“1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in confirming the validity of\nthe impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act as also the notice issued

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having regard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. Appeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant has raised following grounds: - "1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

ABDUL RASHID KHAN,DHOLPUR vs. ITO-1, BHARATPUR

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

condonation of delay is allowed. Appeal is admitted. On merits Assessee-Appellant –a non compliant in assessment and appellate proceedings 7. As per assessment order dated 10.03.2023 the assessee was non responsive to the notices by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, issued

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the case

KALU JAT,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

delay of 31 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That under

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 6 days\nin filing the appeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. During the\nyear under consideration the assessee filed return of income on 30.07.2016 by\ndeclaring total Income for the year consideration of Rs.24,04,760/-. The assessee's\ncase was reopened u/s 147/148

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

condonation of delay has already been allowed and discussed at para 2.1 of the present appellate order Accordingly, ground no 5 is allowed. Grounds no.2,4 and 6 are interrelated and raised directly or indirectly against the addition of Rs. 70,39,970/-made under section 68 of the Act. In this case, the appellant had not filed a return

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

condonation of delay has already been allowed and discussed at para 2.1 of the present appellate order Accordingly, ground no 5 is allowed. Grounds no.2,4 and 6 are interrelated and raised directly or indirectly against the addition of Rs. 70,39,970/-made under section 68 of the Act. In this case, the appellant had not filed a return

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before us. 3. Ground no. 1 raised in the grounds of appeal herein above is an additional ground which, due to inadvertence, could not be taken up before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The assessee has, thus, prayed that this additional ground being purely legal in nature and does not require

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 5 of Limitation act. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 9. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Date : .05.2025. Deponent VERIFICATION I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 5 of Limitation act. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 9. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Date : .05.2025. Deponent VERIFICATION I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar

SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as having been withdrawn as indicated hereinabove

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

condoning inordinate delays of more than 43 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly, I decline the delay of 43 days and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion, appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand dismissed.’’ 3 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates

RATAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

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

condonation of delay is allowed. 6. When the appeal has been taken up for hearing on merits, it has been brought to our notice by Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department that the department has commenced proceedings against the assessee u/s 148A(d) of the Act, and that the appellant has been participating