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

22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay

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

condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961", "Section 143(1) of the Act", "Section 13 of Information Technology Act 2000", "Sections 282/282A of Income Tax Act", "Rule 127/127A of the Income Tax Rules", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Section 3 of the Limitation Act", "Order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC" ], "issues": "Whether the delay

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

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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)

22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance

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

22 cases. But, at the time of first hearing Hon'ble Bench advised me to file an application for condonation of delay, as the delay is inordinate. 14. Then, with immediate effect I filed a delay condone application on 12.12.2025. Thereafter, for hearing on 16.12.2025, I engaged a new counsel for arguments of the case. The new counsel advised

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

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

section 11 & 12 of IT Act. Assessee trust also did not furnish anything regarding application for condonation of delay moved to appropriate authority in the department for delay in furnishing audit report. Therefore, on this account also, assessee trust is not eligible for any exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. 4.4 The learned AO also enquired about spending

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice." (ii)In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) (12) SCC 649], the 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the principles applicable to an application for condonation of delay and the same are profitably reproduced hereunder: "(i) There should