RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

35 36 Shri Ram Bharose Sharma vs ITO, Ward- 2(4), Jaipur that various courts have condoned the delay either in the case of the assessee or Revenue which are mentioned as under:- (i) In Ram Lal & Sons vs. ITO (2006) 99 TTJ 0063 (Asr Trib) (DPB 1-4) held as under: “Appeal [CIT(A)]—Condonation of delay

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

35 properly and even in his order also he has narrated the facts wrongly. As the CIT (A) hearing both the appeals together, he copied the submission of the appellant in both the cases without caring for contents of each case. In the matter for AY 2016-17 the delay occurred due to the reason that based

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 :

II. Misrepresentation of Facts in Condonation of Delay In the matter of: Assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and reliance on misquoted Rajasthan High Court order dated 05.07.2024 1. Chronology: o Assessment order received: 18.04.2024(as per assessee version) o Limitation expired: 18.05.2024 o Writ filed: 12.06.2024 (after limitation) 2. Consequently, the writ could not have caused the delay

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 :

II. Misrepresentation of Facts in Condonation of Delay In the matter of: Assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and reliance on misquoted Rajasthan High Court order dated 05.07.2024 1. Chronology: o Assessment order received: 18.04.2024(as per assessee version) o Limitation expired: 18.05.2024 o Writ filed: 12.06.2024 (after limitation) 2. Consequently, the writ could not have caused the delay

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 :

II. Misrepresentation of Facts in Condonation of Delay In the matter of: Assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and reliance on misquoted Rajasthan High Court order dated 05.07.2024 1. Chronology: o Assessment order received: 18.04.2024(as per assessee version) o Limitation expired: 18.05.2024 o Writ filed: 12.06.2024 (after limitation) 2. Consequently, the writ could not have caused the delay

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 :

II. Misrepresentation of Facts in Condonation of Delay In the matter of: Assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and reliance on misquoted Rajasthan High Court order dated 05.07.2024 1. Chronology: o Assessment order received: 18.04.2024(as per assessee version) o Limitation expired: 18.05.2024 o Writ filed: 12.06.2024 (after limitation) 2. Consequently, the writ could not have caused the delay

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,01,270/-. The case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35 - However, order of Commissioner (Appeals)was not served on aforesaid address - Further, assessee filed appeal before Tribunal within prescribed period of 60 days from date of receipt of order of Commissioner (Appeals) -Whether, therefore, there was no delay on part of assessee to prefer appeal after receipt of order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal ought

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

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

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

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO, in making adjustments in the intimation under Section 143(1) which are outside the purview of section 143(1)(a). The action

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35 and therefore, the prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 81 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition

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

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

35\nTaxman 227 (Patna)/[1988] 171 ITR 405 (Patna)/[1988] 67 CTR 75 (Patna) [10-\n09-1987] it was held by Hon'ble Patna High Court as under.-\nX\nX\nX\nX\nC.2 Issue 1: date of service of the assessment order under challenge in the\nappeal:-\nHowever in the order in the writ petition there is mention regarding

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal owing to delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 4. The brief facts of the case in ITA No. 460/JPR/2024, as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

ii) Further, the delay in filing appeal has been attributed to late service of assessment order. However, the appellant did not provide any supporting document to prove his claim. 4.4 As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.249 of the Act, the appeal should be filed/presented within 30 days of the date of service of the demand notice

RAM DEV DAIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-1, JHUNJHUNU

Bench: The Tribunal. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Contents Of The Application While Orally Making Out A Case Of There Being

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It was noted that there can be same lapse on the part of the litigant concerned causing the delay, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the doors against him. That as long as the explanation offered