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)

79 days in filing the appeal by the assessee as the assessee has sufficient cause. We also get support from the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to consider the liber approach in deciding the petition for condonation

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), 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. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condonation of delay reads as under: “With reference to the above referred subject, I beg to state chat my case for the assessment year 2014-15 was argued by my consultant (Chartered Accountant) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ajmer and was awaiting for the appellate order. That, due to heavy loss in both the Companies in which

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), 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. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condonation of delay reads as under: “With reference to the above referred subject, I beg to state chat my case for the assessment year 2014-15 was argued by my consultant (Chartered Accountant) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ajmer and was awaiting for the appellate order. That, due to heavy loss in both the Companies in which

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)

section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [ for short “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

MANCAN FOUNDATION,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1092/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :.................. Cuke Mancan Foundation, C.I.T.(Exemption) Vs. Udaipur. Jaipur. C/O-Shah Patni & Co. Chartered Accountants, S.B. One, Babu Nagar, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302015. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaftm 7600 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Pramod Patni (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (In Short, The Cit(E)) Dated 27/06/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Grossly Erred In Fact As Well As In Law In Rejection The Application For Registration U/S. 12Aa Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant Company:

condone the delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed application before the ld. CIT(E) seeking registration U/s 12AA of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(E) after considering the case of the assessee passed order U/s 12AA

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoned the delay in filling an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the issue is required to be decided on its merits before us the ld. DR stated that same be remitted to ld. AO or that of the CIT(A). On the other hand ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision

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

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

79 days in\nfiling the appeal by the assessee as the assessee has sufficient\ncause. We also get support from the decision of the apex court in\nthe case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others\n167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to\nconsider the liber approach in deciding the petition for condonation

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:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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)

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHAKUNTLA DEVI,TIJARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condoned which indicates the sufficient cause for such bona fide delay. 3.1 Further, it is noted that an application by the ld. Counsel for the assessee under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been moved to raise the additional ground and the same is reproduced as under:- ‘’On the facts and in the circumstances

LATE. SHRI SATPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

condone the delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee run business in the name and style of M/s Satnam Motor, a proprietary concern. He e-filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring total income

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

section 154. 5.2.4 While doing so, reliance is being placed on the ratio of Institute of self- management. v. CIT 1 Madurai [2011] 16 Tax Man. Corn. 331 (Chennai). In present situation it is very difficult to accept the reason offered by the assessee for condonation of delay. Rather than ignorance of law, it is found that the delay

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as 2 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CIT 614 (Bom). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery