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

21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their

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

delay in filing of the present appeal of 476 days is therefore condoned. 21. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “Leave Encashment Fully Exempted 1. Any payment received by an employee of the Central Govt. OR a State Govt. as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ 6. /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ 6. /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ 6. /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ 6. /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

21, 2019 which clearly establishes that it was filed beyond the date specified under Section 139; Accordingly, ITAT holds that the case clearly falls beyond scope of Para 4(i) of Circular No. 10/2019 and since the Assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay

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 :

21). (b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper

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 :

21). (b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper

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 :

21). (b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper

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 :

21). (b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper

JAGDISH PRASHAD PANCHAL,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

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

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

section 68 of the Act, on account of Old Currency having been deposited by the Appellant which includes Rs. 14,70,000/- in new currency as well and CIT (A) is justified in not deciding the Appeal on merits. SUBMISSIONS ON GROUND No. 2 It is pertinent to mention here that any delay to be condoned

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. 6. At the outset, the Id. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. 6. At the outset, the Id. counsel for the appellant submitted that ITA 562/JP/ /2025 may be taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause

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

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

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

21).\n(b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation\n• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649\nApplicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons;\nsuppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32).\n• Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal\napproach applies only when sufficient cause

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

21. Other various Courts also took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage, either before the AO or the appellate authority. This view has been reiterated

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

21. Other various Courts also took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage, either before the AO or the appellate authority. This view has been reiterated