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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

section 201(1) and 201(1A) before the ld. CIT (A). Since there was a delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT (A), the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable in limine by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the delay in filing

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

section 206AA whereas the same was brought to statute book by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01- 04-2010. The action of the ld.AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the demand being illegal. The assessee craves its right to ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ 3 DRM Vs ACIT add, amend

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

section 206AA whereas the same was brought to statute book by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01- 04-2010. The action of the ld.AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the demand being illegal. The assessee craves its right to ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ 3 DRM Vs ACIT add, amend

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO-CIT(A) upheld order of AO- Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)-Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

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

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

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above)\nand being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is\ndismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be\ntaken upon merits.\n5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.\n7. As the assessee

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:

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 48 days. There is also no dispute that under section

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:

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 48 days. There is also no dispute that under section

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

condone the delay of 932 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, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay should receive a liberal construction as to advance the substantial Justice.. 3. Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has 5 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), NFAC with

SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, 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. 1460/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. Pan No.: Ahppg 4958 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time At Cit Level As He Got Sick & Mentally Upset Due To Deep Financial Pressure As He Was Suffering From Financial Hardship & Seeked Condonation Of Delay Of 38 Days In Filing The Appeal But His Appeal Was Dismissed By Cit(A) Without Dealing On The Basis Of Merits Of The Case As Cit Sustained The Arbitrarily Disallowance By Ld. Ao Of Lump Sum Addition Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Out Of Other Expenses Without Any Basis. Also Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law By Arbitrarily Disallowing Lump Sum Amount Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Without Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Violation Of The Principle Of Nature Justice.”

section 5 of the. Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the court to do the substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matter on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaning manner which serves the ends of justice that being

M/S. NATANI ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 245/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(2), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 19/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ajmer, (Appellate Authority) Has Grossly Erred On The Facts & On The Law In Sustaining Assessment Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2), Jaipur (Assessing Authority) Dated 27/12/2016 By Which He Disallowed Interest Rs. 22,06,319/- Paid As Expenditure In Connection With Business Activities With Certain Suppliers Of Goods, Job Workers For Manufacturing Of Goods Of The Appellant & Added In The Returned Income, Thus, The Impugned Assessment Order As Well As Appellate Order Both Are Against The Provisions Of The Act, Bad In Law, Erroneous & Liable To Be Quashed & Addition Of Rs. 22,06,319/ Liable To Be Deleted, Hence, The Same

condone the delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6 ITA 245/JP/2020_ Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS Bars, MS Angles, sections and channels etc. Return of income was electronically

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

condone the delay of 391 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR\n471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.1 During the course of hearing, the Id. AR of the assessee

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

condonation of delay in filling appeal, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeal) has grosslyerred in not considering the fact that the assessment order was never served upon the assessee appellant and it came