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

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

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

natural justice.\n2\nITA No. 5 to 12/Jodh/2024\n Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2019-20\nConsidering common issue on identical facts, these appeals were heard\ntogether and adjudication by this consolidated order for sake of convenience and\nbrevity. We take the appeal in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2024 in respect with Assessment\nYear 2012-13, as a lead case for discussion

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD. vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

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

natural justice.\n2\nITA No. 5 to 12/Jodh/2024\n Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2019-20\n2.\nConsidering common issue on identical facts, these appeals were heard\ntogether and adjudication by this consolidated order for sake of convenience and\nbrevity. We take the appeal in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2024 in respect with Assessment\nYear 2012-13, as a lead case

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

MANOHAR SINGH,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT,CIRCLE, BARMER

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

Bench: Him & Thereby Refusing To Condone The Delay Under Section 249(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Passed On 14.12.2017 By The Ld. Ao. The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 04.10.2018, Resulting In A Delay Of 261 Days. The Assessee Had Indicated In Form No. 35 That The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay Would Be Submitted At The Time Of Hearing. However, As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A), No Such Submission Was Made Despite Multiple Opportunities. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed In Limine By The Ld. Cit(A) Without Adjudicating The Matter On Merits. 3. Before Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Unintentional & Caused Due To Reasonable Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Was Prayed That The Delay Be Condoned & The Matter Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits.

delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 2 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In our considered view, the principles of natural justice

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

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

natural justice.\n2\nITA No. 5 to 12/Jodh/2024\n Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2019-20\n2.\nConsidering common issue on identical facts, these appeals were heard\ntogether and adjudication by this consolidated order for sake of convenience and\nbrevity. We take the appeal in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2024 in respect with Assessment\nYear 2012-13, as a lead case

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

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)

natural justice. 2. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record we find that there was delay of 646 days in filing the appeal by the assesee. The Appellant assessee has filed an application for condonation