DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Unexplained Money u/s 69A without appreciating that same emanated out of sale proceeds of business and only Income component ought to have brought to taxation and that too under head of Income from Business and Profession. 5 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making addition of entire contract receipts

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 before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

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 before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

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 before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

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 before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same. Additional Submission It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented by an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The expectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

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

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

Bench: Him.

condone the delay 326 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay is therefore covered under "sufficient cause" as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Denial of condonation would result in grave injustice, as the appellant would be deprived of the statutory right to appeal without any fault on their part. 2. That the Ld. AO erred in making an addition

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act.\n3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”\n5. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 41 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

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

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

condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order giving 05 opportunities to the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5. Ground of Appeal

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

condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order giving 05 opportunities to the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5. Ground of Appeal

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

unexplained money u/s 69A read with section\n115BBE of the Act.\n3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground\non or before the date of hearing.”\n5. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 41\ndays in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal

SHRI JITENDRA BEHL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in not considering the explanation of the appellant supported from documentary evidences in right prespective and judicious manner. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding

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