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

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 being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO valid reason warranting condonation of delay

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

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 being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO valid reason warranting 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 :

set aside the final ex parte decree”. Thus, said issue is not in hand before the Hon’ble Tribunal, thus, case law is clearly distinguishable. 31. Thus, the various case laws relied upon by department are clearly distinguishable, more particularly, the same are not in context of the Income tax law or any provision thereof, hence these judgments are wholly

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 :

set aside the final ex parte decree”. Thus, said issue is not in hand before the Hon’ble Tribunal, thus, case law is clearly distinguishable. 31. Thus, the various case laws relied upon by department are clearly distinguishable, more particularly, the same are not in context of the Income tax law or any provision thereof, hence these judgments are wholly

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 :

set aside the final ex parte decree”. Thus, said issue is not in hand before the Hon’ble Tribunal, thus, case law is clearly distinguishable. 31. Thus, the various case laws relied upon by department are clearly distinguishable, more particularly, the same are not in context of the Income tax law or any provision thereof, hence these judgments are wholly

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 :

set aside the final ex parte decree”. Thus, said issue is not in hand before the Hon’ble Tribunal, thus, case law is clearly distinguishable. 31. Thus, the various case laws relied upon by department are clearly distinguishable, more particularly, the same are not in context of the Income tax law or any provision thereof, hence these judgments are wholly

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

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 being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy

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

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

Bench: Him.

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 being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy

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)

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 being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

set aside the final ex parte decree\". Thus, said issue is not in hand before\nthe Hon'ble Tribunal, thus, case law is clearly distinguishable.\n31. Thus, the various case laws relied upon by department are clearly\ndistinguishable, more particularly, the same are not in context of the Income tax\nlaw or any provision thereof, hence these judgments are wholly

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

set of facts the delay in bring the present appeal is condoned. 11. So far as the delay before, the ld. CIT(A) is concerned we note that the assessee is a Government Banking Company and due to transferable Bank of India vs. ITO job of branch managers, no proper tax consultant appointed but upon receipt of demand through demand

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

set of facts the delay in bring the present appeal is condoned. 11. So far as the delay before, the ld. CIT(A) is concerned we note that the assessee is a Government Banking Company and due to transferable Bank of India vs. ITO job of branch managers, no proper tax consultant appointed but upon receipt of demand through demand

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

set of facts the delay in bring the present appeal is condoned. 11. So far as the delay before, the ld. CIT(A) is concerned we note that the assessee is a Government Banking Company and due to transferable Bank of India vs. ITO job of branch managers, no proper tax consultant appointed but upon receipt of demand through demand

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

set of facts the delay in bring the present appeal is condoned. 11. So far as the delay before, the ld. CIT(A) is concerned we note that the assessee is a Government Banking Company and due to transferable Bank of India vs. ITO job of branch managers, no proper tax consultant appointed but upon receipt of demand through demand

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

set of facts the delay in bring the present appeal is condoned. 11. So far as the delay before, the ld. CIT(A) is concerned we note that the assessee is a Government Banking Company and due to transferable Bank of India vs. ITO job of branch managers, no proper tax consultant appointed but upon receipt of demand through demand

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

loss and injustice. 13. That, further it is submitted that, as per section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, delay should be condoned where ‘sufficient cause’ is established by the assessee. It is settled law that, the term ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless and until delay is found

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

set of facts we condone the delay in filling the\npresent appeal. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay\nof 409 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the\nassessee and thereby condone the delay as the assessee was\nprevented with sufficient cause.\n4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that