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

3) / 144 of the Act). Assessee, against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, has filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose off the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if 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

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice is not defeated

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice is not defeated

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice is not defeated

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice is not defeated

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice is not defeated

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

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

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 in the bank I.T.A. No.571/Jodh/2018 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 account. The ld. AO confirmed the addition amount to Rs.20,30,585/- for depositing

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 of 2 M/s Dhaban Gram Sewa Sahakari Samity delay. We find the assessee has sufficient cause to file the appeal in delay. Accordingly

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

GLOBAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ,UDAIPUR 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 medical college under the name “M/s Pacific Institute of Medical Science” in Udaipur. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 05.3.2001, subject

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

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the ACIT CIR, Bhilwara. 2 Shree Navkar Realinfra Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT, Udaipur has grossly erred in initiating revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Income

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

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