SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271

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

271(1)(c)", "Section 260A", "Section 30(1)", "Section 30(2)", "Section 31(1)", "Section 33", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules 1962" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) should be dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, or if the delay could be condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

section\n| 271(1) of the Act and\n| delay of 610 not\n| condoned\n| 1559/JP/2024\n| 2015-16\n| NFAC

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(c).\n4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred\nin confirming the penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee was eligible for\ndepreciation otherwise and the deduction was claimed due to mistake of\ncounsel which

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

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case 1. is dismissing the appeal owing