TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on\ngood and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an\nappeal after the expiry of the period of limitation.\n4.2. On the issue of delay in filing the appeal, no reason was\ngiven by the Appellant. The appellant submitted that the\npetition for delay will be submitted

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

delay in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

249, read with sections 246A and 80P, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Form of appeal and limitation (Condonation of delay) - Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by assessee under section 80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay

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

249(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Please furnish ground-wise written submissions along with documentary evidence, if any, in support of each ground of appeal as per appeal memorandum The above information/details should be submitted on or before 01- 11-2024. The assessee, however, made compliance of this notice on 10.11.2011 enclosing the Delay condonation petition along with supporting

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 68", "Section 69C", "Section 249(2

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)

249 Taxman 0372 (Madras) (Delay 1631 days), held that “Appeal—Condonation of delay—Tribunal refused to entertain appeal of Assessee-charitable institution filed against order passed by CIT(A) only on ground that, it was woefully delayed by 1631 days—Held, there was enormous delay in moving appeal before Tribunal—Assessee had not filed petition for condonation of delay, which

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)

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal or even explaining the purported 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal within the time limit as prescribed under Section 249(2

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 249(2) r.w.s 249(3) of the Act 9 Ishan Arora vs. ITO and is being dismissed as non-maintainable without any adjudication on merits or any other aspect of the appeal. 4.11 It is well settled legal position that until and unless delay in filing the appeal is condoned

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 249(2) of the Act, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days 11. from the date of service of order i.e. latest by 18.01 .2020, however, the appeal was filed electronically on 03.02.2024. Thus, there was a delay of 1477 days. However, after reducing the extended period of limitation in filing appeal by Hon’ble Apex Court

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 249(2) of the Act, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days 11. from the date of service of order i.e. latest by 18.01 .2020, however, the appeal was filed electronically on 03.02.2024. Thus, there was a delay of 1477 days. However, after reducing the extended period of limitation in filing appeal by Hon’ble Apex Court

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 249(2) of the Act, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days 11. from the date of service of order i.e. latest by 18.01 .2020, however, the appeal was filed electronically on 03.02.2024. Thus, there was a delay of 1477 days. However, after reducing the extended period of limitation in filing appeal by Hon’ble Apex Court

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 249(2) of the Act, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days 11. from the date of service of order i.e. latest by 18.01 .2020, however, the appeal was filed electronically on 03.02.2024. Thus, there was a delay of 1477 days. However, after reducing the extended period of limitation in filing appeal by Hon’ble Apex Court

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) TMI 1068 Condonation of delay - bonafide mistake at the end of the chief accountant - delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner - Held that:- Sub-section 5 of Section 253 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that

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

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

sections": [ "148", "270A", "271AAC", "69A", "44AD", "249(2)", "249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC/CIT(A) was to be condoned

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

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

condoned. The appeals were admitted and remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "270A", "271AAC", "69A", "44AD", "249(2)", "249(3)", "144" ], "issues": "Whether the delay

JAIRAJ SINGH SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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)

delay of 584 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2) of section 249 of the Act, the appeal unit may, - (a) in case, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said time, admit the appeal, or (b) in any other case, roject the appeal, under intimation to the National Faceless Appeal Centre; 10.5 I find that delay of 1012 days

JAIPUR SAHAKARI KRAYA VIKRAYA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 5(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

condonation of delay in filing of the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR has further submitted that in Para 15 of Form 35, in respect of each appeal, reason for delay of filing of the appeal was furnished. 13. For filing of an appeal, sub-section (2) of Section 249