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

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub-sections (1) or (2) of section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much later

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. Being aggrieved from the order of the assessment the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee filed before the ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 162 days. The appellant filed a petition for condonation of the delay. The ld. CIT(A) did not find the merits in the condonation petition

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay 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. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay 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. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

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

4 years, 6 months and 15 days. The assessee prayed to condone the delay in filling the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and since the revenue has on similar facts allowed the rectification as per provision of section

RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoned. ] 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the assessee-applicant has failed to establish that there was any sufficient cause for non filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, 4 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, being barred by limitation

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 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. The appeal has been noted to be time-barred by 476 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application are substantiated in a duly sworn affidavit dated 18.12.2025 which was also filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, 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 :

4) of Section 127 provides that the transfer of a case under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings and shall not render necessary the re- issuance of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer from whom the case is transferred. 21. Exercise of power under sub-section

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 :

4) of Section 127 provides that the transfer of a case under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings and shall not render necessary the re- issuance of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer from whom the case is transferred. 21. Exercise of power under sub-section

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 :

4) of Section 127 provides that the transfer of a case under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings and shall not render necessary the re- issuance of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer from whom the case is transferred. 21. Exercise of power under sub-section

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 :

4) of Section 127 provides that the transfer of a case under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings and shall not render necessary the re- issuance of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer from whom the case is transferred. 21. Exercise of power under sub-section

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,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. 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. 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. 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