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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days 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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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

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

delays made by the assessee in\nfiling the appeals are condoned. Further, it is also noteworthy to mention\nthat in quantum appeals the assessee was not in a position to file the reply\nto the queries of the AO during assessment proceedings, these appeals\nare restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh but by providing\nadequate

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals. The quantum appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty appeals were consequently also restored.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "271F

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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the time limit of 30 days from the date of the order” 4. The Assessing Officer also assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 3,46,08,520/-. Issued demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty

A.N. SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. JCIT-RANGE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

condone the delay of 132 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that as per the revenue, the assessee trust was required to file its return of income U/s 139(4C)(e) of the Act by 31/07/2010 for the year under consideration. However, return in this case

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 07.012.2019. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal:- 2 M/s Jeenkripa Township Pvt. Ltd. “ 1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity

SH. DARSHAN SINGH,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

Appeal is allowed on the only legal ground raised before us by Ld

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay. On merits 6. Ld. AR has referred to the paper book submitted before the Registry on 18.07.2025, and then to the copies of order dated 15.02.2023, available at page 27 to 31, and pointed out that vide both said orders, penalty orders relating to the assessment year 2011-12, and passed u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay with following prayers: “Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the appellant is a senior citizen and a retired employee of the Indian Railways, earning mainly from pension income. 2. That the assessment order under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 20.11.2017, determining the total assessed income at ₹12,75,580, along with interest