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

Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. Meaning thereby, in exercising such discretion as envisaged u/s. 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall have to conduct enquiry and examine the submissions regarding the condonation of delay. 5 Shri Manish Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Singhania Huf B-22/12, Sector-3, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadhr1548F

condonation of delay was non-genuine and false since the assessee had claimed that they had received demand notice and assessment order on 1st April, 2023 i.e. after 11 days of the said documents being uploaded online which was held to be untrue by the said authority. That however, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has not brought any clarity

SANDEEP KAUR GILL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/102, Shukla Colony, Ravi Shankar, Shukla Ward, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

RAKESH KUMAR, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI,, DURG

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

1), Bhilai 10. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 346 days deserves to be condoned and the matter should be adjudicated afresh based on merits of the case and facts available on record

UDAY VENTURE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.824/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Uday Venture Singhania Bhawan, Subhash Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadfu7600D

condoning the delay of 1058 days. That as discernable from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, sufficient cause in accordance with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has not been established in the case of the assessee and hence, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation

SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2(1), BILASPU, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 370/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Suresh Kumar Agrawal Contractor Main Road, Post-Lormi, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 115 Pan: Adlpa9083B

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

MALANI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

section 251(1)(a) of the Act and failed to adjudicate on legal ground as well as on merits of the case as raised before him. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO as well as CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1

LATE SHANTI MOHTA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shanti Mohta 15/391, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram S.O Chhattisgarh- 492 001 Pan: Aldpm6184F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

LOKESH KUMAR NAYAK, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Lokesh Kumar Nayak Ward No.12, Thakurdiya Khurd Masamund (C.G.)-493 551 Pan: Baypn3445D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A 4 Lokesh Kumar Nayak

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

Section 249(3) of the Act, rather a mere excuse. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the 3 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 03 & 04/RPR/2026 case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

Section 249(3) of the Act, rather a mere excuse. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the 3 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 03 & 04/RPR/2026 case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority

DAS PROCESSORS,RAJNANDGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHILAI 1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.394/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Das Processors 44, Vardhman Nagar, Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

M/S GULZAR-MOKSH(JV), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gulzar-Moksh (Jv) Gulzar Niwas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (C.G)-494 001 Pan: Aanfg4916A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of 4 M/s. Gulzar-Moksh (JV) Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

delay of 1647 days deserves to be condoned, and the matter needs to be adjudicated on its merits. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 14. Apropos, the obligations on the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the matter on merits, our view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

delay of 1647 days deserves to be condoned, and the matter needs to be adjudicated on its merits. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 14. Apropos, the obligations on the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the matter on merits, our view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

delay of 1647 days deserves to be condoned, and the matter needs to be adjudicated on its merits. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 14. Apropos, the obligations on the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the matter on merits, our view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court

ASIF ALI,NAWAGARH AMBIKAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 AMBIKAPUR, KHARASIYA ROAD AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asif Ali Nawagarh Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G)-497 001 Pan: Aoypa3486J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.542/Rpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 249 clause 3, hence, we condone the said delay of 567 days. At the same time, it is held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC does not have any power to dismiss an appeal in limine without dealing with the merits of the matter as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay