NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Condonation of delay: It is noticed that there is a delay of approximately 3170 days. It is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of almost 3170 days. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Condonation of delay: It is noticed that there is a delay of approximately 3170 days. It is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of almost 3170 days. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Condonation of delay: It is noticed that there is a delay of approximately 3170 days. It is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of almost 3170 days. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Condonation of delay: It is noticed that there is a delay of approximately 3170 days. It is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of almost 3170 days. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay therein involved be condoned. The Ld. D.R., to support his aforesaid contention, had relied upon a plethora of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as follows: (i). Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and ITA. No.288/C/2017 9 Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) (ii). Commissioner of Income-tax, (Exemptions

MANAV RACHNA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 01/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Manav Rachana Education Society, A-1, Pushpak Apartments, Opp. Government School, Chhotapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaaac6228R . ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delay involved in filing of the aforesaid application is concerned, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal was vested with no 8 Manav Rachna Education Society Vs. CIT (Exemptions), Bhopal (MP) power under the Act to condone

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

condone the delay, without appreciating the 1 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) facts of the case, and therefore, the impugned appellate order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 2. That, on the facts and in law, notice u/s 148 dt. 28/03/2024 has been issued by Sri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay in filing appeal. 3 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur (4) Condoning the delay

SAVITA SANJAY MARGHADE,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

condonation of delay was neither genuine nor valid. Consequentially the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the following decisions: “1. Majji Sannemma & Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021. 2. Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar in Civil Appeal Nos.8183, 8184 of 2013 dated

RAJKUMAR THADWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 515 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5 Rajkumar Thadwani Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Raipur 4. It is noted that as per Paras 4, 5.3 to 7 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

CHHATTISGARH RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 16 & 17/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal. ……""यथ" / Respondent

exemption is sought" There is no provision of any condonation of delay in filing of form No.56D in the Income

CHHATTISGARH RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 16 & 17/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal. ……""यथ" / Respondent

exemption is sought" There is no provision of any condonation of delay in filing of form No.56D in the Income

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P(2). (vi) The entire afore said additions can be explained with the help of the following chart: The assessing officer had added Rs 2,79,470/ again on A/C of TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added