VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

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)

37 (Mag.) (Guj) (HC) (DPB 7-10) held as under: “S.253: Appellate Tribunal – Appeal – Condonation of delay – High Court condoned the delay of more than one year due to negligence of lawyer. Assessee running a tuition centre, an assessment order was passed. Against said order, 9 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal with a delay

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

37 days. Considering the contentions supported by an affidavit, we find the reasons given are sufficient to condone the delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee. 6. Before we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

2 Jaipur V. M/s Jaipur Rugs Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1084/JP/2016\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs Headstrong Services India Pvt Ltd\n197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi)\nSHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.)\nC. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of\ncondonation of delay

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37, in front of Govt. Primary Jaipur Mahal School, Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATJ 5362 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/02/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

2. That as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal should have been filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of order i.e. by 17.05.2024. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the appeal was filed on 10.12.2024, resulting in a delay of 207 days. This delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but occurred

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

37 days. Considering the contentions\nsupported by an affidavit, we find the reasons given are sufficient to\ncondone the delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

37 days. Considering the contentions\nsupported by an affidavit, we find the reasons given are sufficient to\ncondone the delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

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

37 year, the Manager of Palas Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti\nLimited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), having its office at Village\n“Palas”, District Sikar, Rajasthan duly authorised and competent to file this\npetition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\n2.2 That the order under section

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 180 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act by not accepting the contention of assessee that

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Based on the guidance of the apex 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. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, the brief facts, as culled

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is 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