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

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

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

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

249(2) of the Act. There has been a delay of nearly 2\nyears in filing the appeal. No specific reasons for delay or request for\ncondonation has been filed by the appellant. The appellant in Col. No.\n14 of Form No. 35 has also stated that there was a delay in filing of the\nappeal. The appellant has just

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

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

4)CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Order\nAssistant Registrar,\nI.T.A.T., Jaipur Benches, Jaipur.", "summary": { "facts": "The appeals were filed by the assessee challenging the rejection of appeals by the NFAC/CIT(A) due to delay in filing Form 35. The assessee claimed a delay of 1480 days, later refined to 852 days, due to issues

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

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

4)CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\n\nBy Order\n\nAssistant Registrar,\nI.T.A.T., Jaipur Benches, Jaipur.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed multiple appeals challenging the rejection of their appeals by the NFAC/CIT(A) due to delay in filing Form 35. The delay was attributed to factors like the appellant's arrest, financial difficulties, and issues

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