SUCHET SINGH YADAV HUF,BEHROR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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 fact as culled out from the records is that survey u/s 133A of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Ganpati Plaza on 29/30.08.2013. While survey proceedings

SUCHET SINGH YADAV HUF,BEHROR, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

condonation\nas the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in\nfact the assessee is at risk.\n4.\nThe brief fact as culled out from the records is that survey u/s\n133A of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the business premises\nof the assessee firm M/s Ganpati Plaza on 29/30.08.2013.\nWhile survey proceedings

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:

54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct

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:

54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 54F of the Act.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that there has been a delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal. As per the affidavit submitted by the assessee, though he received the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the ld CIT(A) on 21.03.2020, however, due to Covid -19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 119 of\r\nthe Income Tax Act for returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act\r\nfor various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23- Reg.\"\r\nWe find from the available records that the assessment in the case of the\r\nassessee

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

LATE SH. SHRI RAM, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR RAMESH KUMAR,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n16/04/2025

54F of the Act.\n4. When our counsel Advocate Kavinder Yadav enquired from\nITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, it came to his notice that case of Sh. Shri Ram\nhas been transferred to faceless assessment center The National\nFaceless Assessment Center passed the assessment order on\n27.09.2021 by treating the DLC value of the land at Rs.28,33,600/-\nas short term

SYAANI LEGAL HEIR LATE NARAYAN JAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR, 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)

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos ground of appeal, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 6 & 7 of his order as under:- “6. Decision In all the grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, he did not produce any submission

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before us. 5 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 23.06.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,69,490/- which was processed under section

NEELAM MEDATWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCTI-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 62 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. PCIT has erred in exercising the revisionary powers by passing the order u/s 263 of IT Act, 1961 setting aside the order passed

BALU RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

Bench: the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) because of the reasons that the copies of these documents could not be obtained by the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that these documents are crucial material for just decision of the appeal. On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly contested this application for leading the additional evidences and submitted that the documents now filed record are not public documents and are self styled documents. Therefore, none of these documents are required

54F of the LT Act, it was required on the part of the appellant to bring on record authentic documentary evidences to establish that the appellant has within a period of three years after the date of the transfer of impugned land has constructed one residential house in India, the cost of which (new asset) is of Rs.25

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for necessary adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,13,860. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessment was then completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for necessary adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,13,860. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessment was then completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated