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)

253(1)(c)—Name of Chartered Accountant was mentioned in petition—Counsel could not have conjured up name of Chartered Accountant—Not only period of delay has to be taken in account but also quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to litigant, and detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party—Assessee

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

6 SOT 497 (Mum.)]:- Laid down the following proposition on power of ITAT to condone delay: “The expression ‘sufficient cause or reason’ as provided in subsection (5) of section 253

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)

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147 r.ws 144. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur, which was disposed of as per the details

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)

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147 r.ws 144. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur, which was disposed of as per the details

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation

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

253/- of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved from the above order of the Assessing Officer,\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The assessee\nhas filed the physical appeal on 25.01.2017 whereas the same\nwas filed online on 17.12.2018. The Id. CIT(A) considered the\nappeal filed as belated and the same was disposed off with the\nfollowing observations

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate. 9. In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal may please be condoned. 4 SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD VS ITO, WARD

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

253 ITR 798 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- 6 AO(SC) AVVNL, Sikar Vs ACIT, CPC (TDS) ‘’Limitation – Condonation of delay – ‘’Sufficient cause’’ for not preferring appeal or making application with prescribed period – where delay is only of a few days – ‘’Sufficient cause’’ to receive liberal construction – Approach of Courts to be pragmatic – Advancing

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched

BHIM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

condonation of delay and left the decision to the bench in the matter. 6 Bhim Singh vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur 2.5 We have heard the rival contentions and persuaded the material available on record made available by both the parties. We have also gone through the various judicial precedent cited to drive home to their contentions so raised

INTERIO PLANET,KOTA vs. CPC INCOME TAX OR ITO , KOTA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 86/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cuke Interio Planet, Cpc, Income Tax Or Ito, 12, Arihant Plaza, Near Post Office, Vs. Kota. Dadabari, Kota-324009 (Raj). Pan No.: Aaffi 8208 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice 4o parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being

RAM KISHORE KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 269/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ram Kishore Khandelwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. A-19, Jai Jawan Colony-I, Tonk Ward 6(2), Road, Jaipur-302018. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpk 9167 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri P.C. Sharma (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 31/01/2020 For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the 6

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6 Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur 3.1 There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. Section 253

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

6. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 & 3 are inter related hence they are clubbed together for adjudication and these grounds are as under: Ground No. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that the appellant has allegedly not been able

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

6. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 & 3 are inter related hence they are clubbed together for adjudication and these grounds are as under: Ground No. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that the appellant has allegedly not been able

SURAJ NARAYAN PAREEK KSHIKSHA SAMITI,PUSHKAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

253 ITR 799 In the above case Court had held that "In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

6. It was submitted by the ld AR there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. It was further submitted that there is no prejudice which will be caused to the department

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

6. It was submitted by the ld AR there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. It was further submitted that there is no prejudice which will be caused to the department