KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee's application

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.

143(3)/144 and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 40,000 @ Rs.10,000 for 4 instances of non-compliance. This order was also not properly served and received by assessee, so certified copy was obtained on 30.05.2016 and appeal is preferred with delay. 5. Respected Sir, the Ld. AO has failed in facts & law in imposing penalty

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone such delay on authorities concerned. In the case of Jaya Educational Trust v. Dy. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 225/191 ITD 107 (Chennai - Trib.), ITAT held that where assessee had filed return of income within due date specified under section 139(4) and also filed Form No. 10 electronically before completion of assessment, assessee could not be denied exemption under

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 31/05/2019. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee filed a duly notarised affidavit. The Ld.DR has not made any objection for condoning

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind the underlying intent of Section 11(2) and the submission of Form 10 in connection therewith which were aspects succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (2001) 2 SCC 128/[2001] 114 Taxman 255/247

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 11(5) of the Act. It has been intimated the department in Form 10 as provided u/s 11 (2) of the Act on 13/02/2020. Despite filing of the reply with respect to grant of the condonation of delay in filing of the Form 10 vide order no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1027179655(1) dated 29.05.2020 by Ld CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

143(1) vide intimation dated 09.02.2020. The CPC has disallowed the appellant’s claim for set apart of Rs. 6,00,000/- considering the fact that form 10 was filed belatedly. Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 5. The Ld. AR argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax, while interpreting such belated applications in form 9A and form no. 10 satisfied

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.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

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.

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

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)

143(3) on 29.12.2016 at Rs.25,28,470/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on certain payments of interest (u/s 194A) and JCB hire charges (u/s 194C). As there was no response to various statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

delay condonation for the above said return of income filing were submitted to competent 4 | P a g e authorities who have passed the order u/s 119(2)(b) (PB No.01 to 03) , as details under: S. No. Asstt. Condonation Authority to Remarks Year petition whom submitted submitted date 1. 2011-12 10.08.2016 The PCCIT, Petition allowed vide order Udaipur

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed with delay for 15 days. The petition for condonation

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a dental college under the name “Ahmedabad Dental College & Hospital”. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 22.3.1996 subject to certain conditions