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 :

delay and jurisdictional issue she has filed case law compilation. As regards the delay petition wherein the assessee contended that the order was not serviced to the assessee but the assessee filed writ petition based on the same order. The order was served to the assessee but the same was returned by the postal authority with a remark no such

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 :

delay and jurisdictional issue she has filed case law compilation. As regards the delay petition wherein the assessee contended that the order was not serviced to the assessee but the assessee filed writ petition based on the same order. The order was served to the assessee but the same was returned by the postal authority with a remark no such

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 :

delay and jurisdictional issue she has filed case law compilation. As regards the delay petition wherein the assessee contended that the order was not serviced to the assessee but the assessee filed writ petition based on the same order. The order was served to the assessee but the same was returned by the postal authority with a remark no such

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)

delay of 423 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 8 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from

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

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

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)

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act without appreciating the fact that it was accepted by Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat during search proceedings that the data in the laptop extracted into excel sheet pertains to M/s Banas Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and that he never denied this fact till the statement was recorded during remand report proceedings.” 4. Whereas assessee against

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act without appreciating the fact that it was accepted by Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat during search proceedings that the data in the laptop extracted into excel sheet pertains to M/s Banas Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and that he never denied this fact till the statement was recorded during remand report proceedings.” 4. Whereas assessee against

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act without appreciating the fact that it was accepted by Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat during search proceedings that the data in the laptop extracted into excel sheet pertains to M/s Banas Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and that he never denied this fact till the statement was recorded during remand report proceedings.” 4. Whereas assessee against

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment. The addition so made is\ncontrary to the law and facts, unjustified, and excessive and deserves a complete\ndeletion.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing an\nex-parte order dated 06.10.2023 without appreciating the facts of the case. The\nimpugned order is against principle

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

delay in filling of appeal by 165 days may kindly be condone and matter may kindly be set aside/remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. ‘’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), she also submitted that even though the assessee was given five opportunities of hearing

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

delay in filling of appeal by 165 days may kindly be condone and matter may kindly be set aside/remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. ‘’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), she also submitted that even though the assessee was given five opportunities of hearing

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

investment in mutual fund was found as unexplained which was added to the total income. Interest of Rs. 9,810/- received by the assessee was also added to the total income. The assessment was finalised at the total income of Rs. 1,15,09,810/-. 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer in the quantum proceeding the assessee

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

investment in mutual funds as unexplained. Subsequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the initial delay

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

HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 112 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. The assessee has marched the present appeal on the following 5. ground

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 4. Appellate Findings: 4.1 Appeal Notices were

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal