SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly, it is settled principles of law that the Courts have to take liberal approach while interpreting the expression ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. In case

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly, it is settled principles of law that the Courts have to take liberal approach while interpreting the expression ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. In 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..

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 the office

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the appeals of the assessee relates to the confirmation of late filing fees charged by the Assessing Officer under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru (in short, “the CPC”) passed under 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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 09/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed

MOHAMMAD YASEER,BARDEZ GOA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MAKRANA

In the result, all the appeals bearing ITAs No

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’). All the impugned orders are emanated from the orders of the Ld.AO, the details of which are given below:- I.T.A Number A.Y. CIT(A)’s order Assessing Officer Section under which date order is passed & dt of order 345/Jodh/2024 2015-16 28/03/2023 ITO, Ward 2, U/s 143(3), DO Makrana

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

SANTOSH SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, whereby various additions made under section 68 of the Act were sustained. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay

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

In the result, the ground no

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2009-10. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Jodhpur,[in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 143(3)/147of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: I.T.A. No.571/Jodh/2018 2 Assessment Year

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

250 for AY 2015-16 under the presumption that the assessment order relates to AY 2016-17. The CIT (A) himself observed that the amendments as stated in his order will take effect from AY 2016-17. Thus, Ld. CIT erred in passing the 2016-17. Therefore the appellant appeals for deletion of addition made of Rs. 7200000. 4. That