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

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 13

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 13

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

section (3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. On perusal of the application of the assessee for condonation of delay along cause that has prevented the assessee in filing the present appeal. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported

SHRI OM PARSHAVNATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

13 Mad 269 has held that it is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section

UPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 192/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Upendra Singh Chauhan Nayapara, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh-494 001. Pan : Afupc3193D ………. अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Jagdalpur (C.G.) ………""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 12. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay

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

13 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board an application seeking condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal, which, thereafter, had been revised twice, as under: (i). After filing the appeal with the Tribunal on 31.01.2020, the department had filed an application, dated Nil, seeking condonation of delay

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA 9 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA Nos.137 to 140/RPR/2026 No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.140/RPR/2026, A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.138 & 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA 9 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA Nos.137 to 140/RPR/2026 No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.140/RPR/2026, A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.138 & 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA 9 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA Nos.137 to 140/RPR/2026 No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.140/RPR/2026, A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.138 & 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA 9 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA Nos.137 to 140/RPR/2026 No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.140/RPR/2026, A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.138 & 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. We may herein observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. We may herein observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGOAN,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

condoned the delay in filing appeals before the said Forum and had dismissed the appeals in limine without any adjudication on merits. In ITA No.516/RPR/2025, there is delay of 4 Shri Manish Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA Nos.516, 517 & 518/RPR/2025 588 days i.e. 1 year 7 months 9 days. Similarly in ITA No.517/RPR/2025, there is delay

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

condoned the delay in filing appeals before the said Forum and had dismissed the appeals in limine without any adjudication on merits. In ITA No.516/RPR/2025, there is delay of 4 Shri Manish Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA Nos.516, 517 & 518/RPR/2025 588 days i.e. 1 year 7 months 9 days. Similarly in ITA No.517/RPR/2025, there is delay