NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee in support of his claim along with condonation delay application also provided the affidavit as per the law, It is further submitted that even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) could have asked assessee to furnish other evidences in support

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 Lal vs. ITO 2

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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

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

271(1)(b) u/s 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- 2024, Ex-parte order holding that the appellant failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his claim for delay in filing the appeal timely filing the appeal and delay not condoned Dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 376 days in not timely filing the appeal

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred