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 :

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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 :

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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

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

condonation as a threshold issue; record that the assessee\nmisrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause.\n4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the\nchallenge.\n5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record\nas a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of\ntransfer

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay which has occurred in filing the present Income Tax Appeal challenging the Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Income Tax Department (NFAC) 2. That, present appeal against the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 was required to be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the Order dated 23.03.2023 i.e. before 23.05.2023. However

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 249(3) is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. 4. Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused, cannot

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Section 249(3) is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek\ncondonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to\nsatisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient cause for\nthe delay.\n4. Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any\namount of delay, however, negligently caused, cannot

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

delay of 178 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 vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

delay of 178 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 vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

46A wherein relevant evidences which corroborates the circumstances under which appellant was forced to make payment in cash have not been considered which may please be declared as illegal. 2 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 3. The due to medical problems and COVID-19 situation the appeal is being delayed submitted by 120 days which may please

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

In the result, result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

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 7 ITA 54 & 55/JP/2021 _ Dalu Ram Meena Vs ITO presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. The brief facts of the case

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

In the result, result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

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 7 ITA 54 & 55/JP/2021 _ Dalu Ram Meena Vs ITO presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. The brief facts of the case

PRIME ROSE CITY SCHOOL SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 is factually incorrect and legally untenable On page 6 of the order, the CIT(A) explicitly condoned the 20-day delay, stating: "...in absence of any objection from the AO's side and purely on the grounds of natural justice, this delay is being condoned and appeal decided on merits." However, in the conclusion, the CIT(A) contradicts

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

ANJU SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(5), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2 Anju Sharma vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. “1. CIT(A) grossly erred

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of three 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 vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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

condonation as the assessee is not going to\nachieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk.\n4. The brief facts of the case in ITA No. 460/JPR/2024, as\nculled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s\n132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the case