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

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

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him. 2

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-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

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

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

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and\nhence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same.\nAdditional Submission\nIt is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented\nby an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The\nexpectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 180 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act by not accepting the contention of assessee that

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

condonation of delay is not granted, there is no need to adjudication on merits of the case”. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) 11, Mumbai has grossly erred in law as well as facts in sustaining disallowance of Rs.38,74,377/- ignoring that- (i) As per ITR form 6 there is no option

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life-purpose

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

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4.0 The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non maintainable since no order u/s 143(1) was filed. Further

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

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

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

In the 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. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. TAN No. JPRO01610A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BENCH All these appeals have

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

In the 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. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. TAN No. JPRO01610A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BENCH All these appeals have

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

In the 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. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. TAN No. JPRO01610A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BENCH All these appeals have

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

In the 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. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. TAN No. JPRO01610A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BENCH All these appeals have