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

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

35]. 3] That on 27.03.2017, CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and disallowed the amount accumulated and set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act for non-filing of Form 10 within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4] That during the year under consideration the appellant had accumulated

SUKHAD JEEVAN SANSTHAN,CHITTORGARH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section (5) of sec. 80G of the Act, it is evident that the time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB. The said legal position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit

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

35 days. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. It was explained that the order of Ld PCIT has been served to the old address of the assessee and hence it came to the knowledge of the late. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. We have heard the parties

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)

delay in the instant case clearly demonstrated that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Accordingly, 4 he held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation

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.

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

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 02 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That

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

NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHILWARA vs. ITO (EXEMTION), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad168/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Vs Noble Educational Society, The Ito Kuwada Road Behind Sophia (Exemption), School, Suwana Road, Ajmer Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn5198G

1. Your goodself is requested to grant relief in the Original Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer on AOP basis for which Assesseee has been granted 12AA Registration under IT Act,1961 bearing Registration No. AAATN5198G/08/17-18/S-174/12AA/ITAT dated 27/11/2016, enclosed herewith the copy of ITAT Order along with Registration Certification U/s12AA of IT Act,1961 issued by ur goodself

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

35 for communication was KUKIVINAY@YAHOO.COM\nNFAC.\n4. That CIT (Appeals) issued 3 hearing notices on 10.02.2021, 05.06.2023\nand 06.07.2023 and all notices were communicated to email\naddress (i.e. KARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM).\n5. That the email address (i.e.\nKARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM) was not operated by me &b the email holder\nis not in my touch.\n6. That in the beginning of Month

M/S. M.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,CHURU. vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CHURU.

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012, reporting total income of Rs. 46,010/- . Assessee is engaged in the business of civil contract and realized total gross receipt of Rs. 3,05,96,037/- on which it declared

NAVPARGANA RAJPUROHIT SAMAJ BHAMDHAM TRUST KALANDRI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, JDOHPUR

Appeal are hereby dismissed

Bench: Cit(A). Consequently, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed Both Appeals Being Not Maintainable.

section 270A of the Act, as regards the assessment year 2018-19 is dated 01.01.2022, whereas the impugned penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, as regards assessment year 2019-20 is dated 04.01.2022. 4. On going through Form 35 of each appeal, presented before Learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee challenged there orders dated 01.12.2021. However

NAVPARGANA RAJPUROHIT SAMAJ BHAMDHAM TRUST KALANDRI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, JODHPUR

Appeal are hereby dismissed

Bench: Cit(A). Consequently, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed Both Appeals Being Not Maintainable.

section 270A of the Act, as regards the assessment year 2018-19 is dated 01.01.2022, whereas the impugned penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, as regards assessment year 2019-20 is dated 04.01.2022. 4. On going through Form 35 of each appeal, presented before Learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee challenged there orders dated 01.12.2021. However