LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is further submitted that an assessee

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. 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. 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. 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,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, 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,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

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,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. 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. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

section 271(1) of the Act and delay of 610 not condoned 213 days 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 Appeal u/s 271

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

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