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)

condone the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as there were three orders, the three sperate appeals was required

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation is not acceptable. Therefore, in absence of findings of the ld CIT(E), we are constrained in deciding the matter and deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(E) to examine and expeditiously adjudicate the matter relating to delay in filing the application seeking registration u/s 12AA and pass

KANHAIYA LAL LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 3.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assesse challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271F of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that while completing the assessment ex-parte u/s 144/147

SMT. MEERA DEVI KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay so happened in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat, Jaipur Vs. JCIT, Jaipur 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the Appellant is an illiterate individual having income from renting of marriage garden situated at Vijay Bari, Sikar Road, Jaipur. The case

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Bench. However, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayer. ‘’’…It Is To Submit That The Cit(A) Order Was Passed On 26-10-2022 & Was Issued On The E-Mail Of The Bank. It Did Not Come To The Notice As The Bank System Marked The E-Mail As Spam Mail & Transferred The Same To Spam Folder. On Being Aware, We Requested For True & Certified Copy Of The Order & Received True & Certified Copy Of The Order On 06-04-2024 & Submitted Appeal Before Your Goodself On 31-05-2024 At Online Portal.

condoning this delay. Accordingly, the request of the appellant for condondation of delay on the basis of these statements is liable to be rejected and the appeal is dismissed as the same had been submitted beyond the prescribed time limit.’’ It is also noticed that the assessee was provided various opportunities to contest the case before

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI,SH 8A, VILLAGE DAULATPURA, POST KATRATHAL, SIKAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, SIKAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sushila Devi SH 8A, Village Daulapura Post Katrathal, Sikar cuke Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPD 6837 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of H

273B provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee for any failure referred to in section 271B if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The AO has otherwise considered this audit report in completing the assessment. Never in past or in subsequent years there is any delay in obtaining & filing

ANGURI DEVI KHANDELWAL (RADHA MOHAN KHANDELWAL (LEGAL HEIR),JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

condoned the absence of assessee or his Authorized Representative on earlier occasions, subsequently the necessary information and evidences were furnished by the assessee to assist in the completion of the assessment and since assessment was completed under section 143(3), the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) cannot be imposed. Under such facts and circumstances, considering the ratio