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

8. On a perusal of the record, the assessee appellant had filed all the captioned appeals before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, involving a delay of 3170, 3177, 3177, 2155, 2162, and 2335 days. The assessee appellant has filed condonation applications dated 04.05.2023 a/w. “affidavits” dated 9th May, 2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing the respective appeals

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

8. On a perusal of the record, the assessee appellant had filed all the captioned appeals before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, involving a delay of 3170, 3177, 3177, 2155, 2162, and 2335 days. The assessee appellant has filed condonation applications dated 04.05.2023 a/w. “affidavits” dated 9th May, 2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing the respective appeals

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

8. On a perusal of the record, the assessee appellant had filed all the captioned appeals before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, involving a delay of 3170, 3177, 3177, 2155, 2162, and 2335 days. The assessee appellant has filed condonation applications dated 04.05.2023 a/w. “affidavits” dated 9th May, 2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing the respective appeals

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

8. On a perusal of the record, the assessee appellant had filed all the captioned appeals before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, involving a delay of 3170, 3177, 3177, 2155, 2162, and 2335 days. The assessee appellant has filed condonation applications dated 04.05.2023 a/w. “affidavits” dated 9th May, 2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing the respective appeals

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

8. On a perusal of the record, the assessee appellant had filed all the captioned appeals before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, involving a delay of 3170, 3177, 3177, 2155, 2162, and 2335 days. The assessee appellant has filed condonation applications dated 04.05.2023 a/w. “affidavits” dated 9th May, 2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay in filing the respective appeals

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

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

8 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 was that the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned as the requisite certificates in Form No.26A could not be obtained from the respective payees viz. (i) Magma Fincorp Ltd.; and (ii) Religare Finvest Ltd. I find no substance in the claim

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

8 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 was that the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned as the requisite certificates in Form No.26A could not be obtained from the respective payees viz. (i) Magma Fincorp Ltd.; and (ii) Religare Finvest Ltd. I find no substance in the claim

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

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. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural

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

V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

8. Now, after condonation of delay by us, we will decide this appeal on merit. 9. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had no power to dismiss appeal in limine. The Act had empowered

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

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

13 days and in ITA No. 518/RPR/2025, there is delay of 351 days i.e. 11 months 16 days. The assessee had filed common submissions explaining the reasons for delay and therein, the assessee had tried to explain that he is not well-versed with the technology and was fully dependent on the accountant who had fallen sick and suffered major