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

86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay — reasonable cause — delay of 1297 days in filing appeal

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

86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay — reasonable cause — delay of 1297 days in filing appeal

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

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

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

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

Bench: Him.

86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing 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)

86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay- reasonable cause - delay of 1297 days in filing appeal

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) condoned the\ndelay of 2984 days and held as under:\n“21. We find relevant factors and tests, everything else has been brought into the\nadjudication by the Tribunal. The Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly\ncarried away by the fact that the delay of 2984 days condonation. That is not how a\nmatter

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

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.

86 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld.AR of the assessee filed a 2 Shri Mehar Chand Gupta vs ITO, Alwar condonation application dated 16-01-2022 mentioning therein that delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is occurred due to death of assessee's son Shri Himanshu Gupta on account of blood cancer

THE SAFEARTH FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, 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 of 37 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT 398 ITR 250,, Just Steels vs. DCIT 74 DTR (MA) 86 Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 13 DTR 371 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay - reasonable cause- delay of 1297 days in filing appeal

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

condone the delay.\n7. The fact as culled out from the records is that information\nwas received from DDIT(Inv.)-III, Jaipur vide letter No. 3303 dated\n22.03.2019 that cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000/- in State Bank of\nIndia had been taken place in his account.\nThe assessee had filed his ITR declaring total income

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)

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Now we take up both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 3.2 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.858/JP/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

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)

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Now we take up both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 3.2 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.858/JP/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal