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

condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that a delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. As is evident from the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) that he has not condone the delay in filling the appeal by the assessee before him which was delayed by 114Days. The assessee submitted that the appeal was filed delayed because the accountant of the assessee was not regular in attending the office due to medical emergency

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

delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days

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)

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial

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

condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5

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

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused 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 515 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

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

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused 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 515 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days

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)

5 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. much after the date of disposal of the appeal by Learned CIT(A). That appeal was disposed of on 24.07.2024. Present appeal came to be filed on 30.06.2025. So, again, this short period of 3 days of illness of grandfather of the applicant is of no aid to the applicant to explain inordinate delay in filing

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 :

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of 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 :

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of 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 :

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of 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 :

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

5)(vi) in the case of Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) [ITA No. 504/JP/2023]. The appeal questioned whether the application should be rejected solely due to a delay and whether the CIT(E) has the authority to condone such a delay. The Tribunal observed that while section

SURAJ NARAYAN PAREEK KSHIKSHA SAMITI,PUSHKAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the court to do the substantial

RAKSHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2.1 “1On the fact and in the circumstances of the matter Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in rejecting the application made u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act vide Form 10AB. Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application merely

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section