VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

natural justice and is also contrary to facts, material and evidence existing on records. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has rejected the appeal at admission stage stating that since appellant 3 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO concealed the fact from revenue for the date of service of order hence same is being rejected the condonation for delay

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

justice. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature

VAGAD SEVA SANSTHAN,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevagad Seva Sansthan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vagad Vidhya Vihar Uchha, Exemption Ward,Udaipur. Madhyamik Vidhyalayafaloz,Bo Faloj, Dungarpur – 314034 Pan No. Aabtv2740F Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

delay of 63 days in filing of appeal having been caused by circumstances entirely beyond its control, may be condoned and the matter be restored to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits in view of principles of natural justice

JANAK SINGH BHATI,JAISALMER vs. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FACELESSS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

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

condone the delay before CIT(A) and send back to A.O. for one more opportunity. 4. The Ld. Addl CIT (DR) has no objection to the request of the assessee in view of principles of natural justice

JANAK SINGH BHATI,JAISALMER vs. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assesses are allowed for

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

condone the delay before CIT(A) and send back to A.O. for one more opportunity. 4. The Ld. Addl CIT (DR) has no objection to the request of the assessee in view of principles of natural justice

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)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 6. Ground No. 1 is legal issue which is not pressed and it is dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the all other grounds the appellant challenged that CIT(A) passed impugned order ex-parte qua the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,78,470/-. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) on 29.12.2016 at Rs.25,28,470/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the case

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

justice. 4 We have heard the contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer as mentioned above by the assessee Seema Pandi vs. ITO. for condonation of delay of 208 days has merit for the reason that there was complete lockdown in Jaipur on account of COVIND-19 and all the offices including

NARAYAN LAL PURBIYA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. May It Please Your Honours. The Appellant Is Resident Of A Small Village In Bhilwara District.The Appellant Was Not Assessed To Tax Prior To The Assessment Year Under Consideration As His Income Was Below Taxable Limit. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellant Made Total Cash Deposits Of Rs. 10,13,900/- In His Bank Account, On The Basis Of Which The Ld. Ito, Ward-4,Bhilwara Initiated Proceedings U/S. 147/148. For Filing The Return Of Income & Persuing The Case Before The Ao The Appellant Had Engaged Sh. Ankit Lakhotiya. As His

condone the delay by taking a liberal view and considering the principles of natural justice and the appeal is admitted

EKKADAM SEVA SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That on the facts

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

justice as delay is of three days only. 5. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of three days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus, the delay of three days in filing the appeal by the assessee

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condoned. 1.8. It will also be worthwhile to submit that the Board was also considering the difficulties being faced genuinely by the taxpayers in making such compliance and that the penal provisions under section 234E may be too harsh to be implemented. The penalty of Rs. 200/- for such technical defect was too high, and therefore a Circular was issued

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

justice, it is requested to kindly condone the delay and allow the submission of appeal and oblige.” 3.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to the delayed filling of an appeal submitting that the assessee being guided by the expert in the filed and the contention raised are general in nature

BHOPAL GARH CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPALGARH vs. ITO, WARD-1(1),, JODHPUR

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of short delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A)/NFAC and restoring the matter to the file of CIT (A) for afresh consideration on merits. 3. The Ld. DR has no objection to the request of the Assessee in view of principles of natural Justice