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

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

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

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

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

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

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 101\ndays in filing the appeal by the assessee. To support our view, we\nsupport on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause and therefore,\nwe admit this appeal.\n6. Succinctly

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the\nappeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is a\ncompany engaged in hotel business. The assessee filed its return of\nincome on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 15,24,86,880/-. A search\nwas conducted on 30.10.2014 in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

Delay condoned.\n2. Leave granted.\nThis two sentence order establishes the application of mind of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India. The application of mind is the whole process through which the all\nthe facts and questions of law has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court\nand the order is just conclusion of the whole process of application

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. This two sentence order establishes the application of mind of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The application of mind is the whole process through which the all the facts and questions of law has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order is just conclusion of the whole process of application