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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the 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

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the 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

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the 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

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the 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

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the 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

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.

4 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO 6. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before its hearing before your honor.” 6. There was delay of 62 days in filing the present appeal, for which, the authorized representative of the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

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

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

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

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

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.”

4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after

EKKADAM SEVA SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 20 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being

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.

Section 10B deals in entire different set of facts. He further submitted that keeping in view of the practical difficulties and technical glitches of e-filing site an amended provision of law to make it more beneficial to the public at large. The CBDT has issued various circulars directing the Asst. Year: 2017-18 4 authorities to condone the delay

LAKECITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay in filing of appeal, as the delay in filing of appeal is on account of reasons beyond the control of appellant. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer charged late filing fee under section