VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 249(4). In fact, as per the return of income no tax was payable and even other wise as per CBDT’s guideline assessee has paid the 20 % of the demand. Based on that set of facts, assessee was advised to present these set of facts before the ld. CIT(A) and they were given to understand that their

M/S. JHUNJHUNU BALAJI MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

condoning delay of 34 days in filing of the appeal. 5. The ld. CIT(A)-III Jaipur observed that the assessee has not deposited the Advance Tax as provided u/s 249(4)(b) of IT Act, ITA Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 3 M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle- Jhunjhunu 1961, therefore vide order dated 28.03.2019 dismissed

M/S. JHUNJHUNU BALAJI MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

condoning delay of 34 days in filing of the appeal. 5. The ld. CIT(A)-III Jaipur observed that the assessee has not deposited the Advance Tax as provided u/s 249(4)(b) of IT Act, ITA Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 3 M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle- Jhunjhunu 1961, therefore vide order dated 28.03.2019 dismissed

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

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

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

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) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same

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

4. DECISION: 4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provisions read as under: "The CIT(A) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period

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

4. to dismissing of the appeals owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant and hence all these 5 appeals of the assessee were clubbed together in Bench ‘A’ at the request of the assessee and heard and adjudicated simultaneously for the sake of convenience and brevity. There was a short

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

4. to dismissing of the appeals owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant and hence all these 5 appeals of the assessee were clubbed together in Bench ‘A’ at the request of the assessee and heard and adjudicated simultaneously for the sake of convenience and brevity. There was a short

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

4. to dismissing of the appeals owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant and hence all these 5 appeals of the assessee were clubbed together in Bench ‘A’ at the request of the assessee and heard and adjudicated simultaneously for the sake of convenience and brevity. There was a short

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

4. to dismissing of the appeals owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant and hence all these 5 appeals of the assessee were clubbed together in Bench ‘A’ at the request of the assessee and heard and adjudicated simultaneously for the sake of convenience and brevity. There was a short

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(3), the Id.CIT(A) could admit the appeal after the expiry of such period if he was satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. The Id.CIT(A), however, noted in the appellate order that no request is made on record for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond

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)

4 Jagdish Prashad Panchal vs.ITO In this regard, the appeal memo is not accompanied with any petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the impugned appeal and the appellant has not stated any reason for Condonation of Delay in filing of the appeal. Adjudication on Condonation of Delay: The appellant has stated in form 35 that for the assessment order

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)

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) of the Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same

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

4 HARIRAM HOSPITAL, ALWAR VS PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR assessee has filed an application dated 05-03-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasons: ‘’1. That the present appeal has been filed against the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) dated 18.03.2024, for the assessment

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of 7 AO(SC) AVVNL, Sikar Vs ACIT, CPC (TDS) demand. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal . The appeal in his written submission has contended

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,BHANWARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

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

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

condones the delay in fling the appeal by the assessee. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-part order in the case of the assessee for the reason that the assessee neither complied nor furnished any reply to the deficiency letters. The ld. CIT(A) inferred that the assessee does