GEN SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with directions as above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

cash deposits were sale proceeds of milk and products. The CIT(A) condoned the delay but, despite notices, found no compliance

MUNNA RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

delay in the instant case clearly demonstrated that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Accordingly, 4 he held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation

KAMAL KISHORE,SUJANGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 CHURU, CHURU

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

cash deposits in the bank account as alleged unexplained money income u/s 69A. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The Id. AO has grossly erred

HASTIMAL ,JALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, JALORE

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash deposited during demonetization period the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. DR has no objection

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

VIJAY PURI,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 4. Having considered the submission of both the sides and perusal of record, we find that admittedly, the assessee has filed return u/s section 44AD of the Act as he did not maintain the books of the account. The Ld. CIT (A) has summarily rejected the appeal

JAI PAL CHOWDHARY,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, NOHAR, HANUMANGARH

The appeal is dismissed as unadmitted

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

condone the delay." 4. From the record, we find that the assessee has neither filed any affidavit nor any material evidence to substantiate its bona fide and sufficient cause for the said delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has not even complied to the notices issued

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 3 days is condoned. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was initiated due to deposit of cash

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

delay of 20 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 and therefore admitting the appeal we are proceeded to deal with the merits

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

GAYATRI SHARMA,NEEMUCH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

cash was found deposit in the Bank a/t of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 6,00,000/- without any basis and without appreciating the facts of the case that while recording reasons the LD. AO has hold that source of deposit into bank A/c was provided by the Chetak group

BHERULAL NAGDA,KANAKHEDA vs. DY COMMISSION OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

cash was found deposit in the Bank a/t of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 6,00,000/- without any basis and without appreciating the facts of the case that while recording reasons the LD. AO has hold that source of deposit into bank A/c was provided by the Chetak group

RAM CHANDRA ANIL KUMAR GOYAK HUF,GEETAYAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME-TAX OFFICE UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

cash was found deposit in the Bank a/t of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 6,00,000/- without any basis and without appreciating the facts of the case that while recording reasons the LD. AO has hold that source of deposit into bank A/c was provided by the Chetak group