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

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 there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

253 ITR 798\n(SC).\nPrayer In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal\nposition, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.\"\nTo this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in\nfiling the appeal.\n2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted

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

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)

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 6

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

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 : 15/02/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 14 days is condoned. 4 JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY VS CIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are the assessee society is registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1958 w.e.f. 07.09.1999 (PB 22) with the main objective of imparting education (PB 23-29). It is registered

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)

D) In O.P. Kathapadia V. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would a ground to condone the delay. 4 Bhim Singh vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur Various High Courts have also made like observations. In the context

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE 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

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 ITA 269/JP/2020_ Sh. Ram Kishore Khandelwal Vs ITO appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 10. Since, the assessee has applied

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)

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 220 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 this

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

253 ITR 798\n(SC).\"\nPrayer: In view of above facts and circumstances and with the\nsympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be\ncondoned.\"\n4. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition submitted that\nthe reasons of late filling is on account of the non-service of\nthe order on the email

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

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