DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(b). On receipt of the orders, he consulted a Chartered Accountant and was advised to wait till the corrected orders comes so as to decide which order is against which appeal and to deal with the connected finding in an appeal. In the meanwhile assessee failed ill and was advise to take rest and in that process

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

271(1)(c) of the Act. A notice of recovery for outstanding demand was served upon the appellant by affixture as the daughter in law of the appellant, who was available at the relevant time, has refused to accept the said notice. Subsequently, the AO vide its order dated 19.08.2015 issued u/s 226(3) of the Act attached the current

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on\n21.08.2024 for A.Y. 2015-16.\n2. That the above order was served online on ITBA Portal on\n21.08.2024 which came into the knowledge of the management on\n13.12.2024 as the old management has not handed over the books\nof accounts, income tax records and other passwords to the new\nmanagement

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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)

section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay 271(1)© holding that the appellant of 377 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal

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(1)© NFAC Delhi, dated 30-05- 2024, Ex-parte order holding that the appellant failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his claim for delay in filing the appeal Dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 103 days in filing the\npresent appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.\n5.\nSuccinctly, the facts as culled out from the records is that return\ndeclaring an income of Rs.2,80,750/- was e-filed by the assessee on\n29.09.2010 and assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on\n20.03.2013

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

condonation of delay, if required. Hence the action of the learned CIT(A) was illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2- The learned AO was not justified in imposing the penalty of rupee 6,29,730 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A.O.- Show cause notice dated 20.03.1997 was issued but no reply