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

17 | 22 condoning the delay for the\nreason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding\nthe statutory provision.\"\nTherefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the\ndelay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay\nwhere no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount

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

17 | 22 condoning the delay for the\nreason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding\nthe statutory provision.”\nTherefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the\ndelay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay\nwhere no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount

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

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is further submitted that an assessee

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

17 respectively. That order was passed because the captioned named assessee challenged the intimation order dated 19.10.2017 passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act], by AO, CPC, Bangalore [ for short AO]. Vivek Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO (E) 2. In these appeals assessee challenged the orders of the CPC, Bangalore which were passed

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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)

17. It is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While

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