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

condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order giving 05 opportunities to the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5. Ground of Appeal

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

condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order giving 05 opportunities to the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5. Ground of Appeal

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to 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 the life-purpose

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to 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 the life-purpose

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 462 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal

NARAYANJI GAJAKWALE PVT. LTD.,,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 3.1 Apropos assessee's solitary ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in both the appeals, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ‘’4. I have duly considered assessee's submission and also carefully gone through assessment order and penalty orders passed u/s 271D

NARAYANJI SPICES & PULSES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat Against The Order Of The Cit Which Was Passed By Him As Single Order. The Appellant In Form No. 36 In Column No. 3 Mentioned The Reference Of Appeal For Three Years. Subsequently, It Was Realized By The Appellant That The Three Appeals Should Have Been Filed Before The Hon'Ble

condonation of delay are allowed. 3.1 Apropos assessee's solitary ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in these three appeals, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ‘’4. I have duly considered the assessee's submissions made for the Ays and also carefully gone through penalty order passed

UDAI LAL MAHABIR PRASAD,INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDIA

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

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

section 143(1) of the Act by raising the following grounds of appeal; ‘’1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld Addl./ JCIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the unfortunate delay in filing of the appeal thereby ignoring the principles of substantial justice. 2 UDAI LAL MAHABIR PRASAD VS ITO, WARD-DAUSA

JITENDRA MEENA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 3.1 Apropos assessee's solitary ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in both the appeals, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ‘’4. I have duly considered assessee's submission and also carefully gone through assessment order and penalty order passed u/s 271D

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

RAJENDRA MEENA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay are allowed. 3.1 Apropos assessee's solitary ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in the appeals for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005- 4 Shri Rajendra Meena. vs. JCIT, Central Range, Jaipur 06, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is condoned. 7 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made

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

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

264 before the PCIT. 6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about the rate of our case, we approached CA Om Prakash Rupani on 29.07.2025 to advice in the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an appeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay. 7. That

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

264 before the PCIT.\n6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about\nthe rate of our case, we approached CA Om Prakash Rupani on 29.07.2025 to advice\nin the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an\nappeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay.\n7. That

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee company was carried out on 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action operation as per provision