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

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

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), 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: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (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:

b) date of Order as 29.03.2022 and served to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal should be filed on or before 28-04-2022, within the time permitted u/s. 249(2) of the Act. However, the appeal has been filed on 08-04-2025 i.e. with a delay of 1051 days for which the appellant has not submitted any condonation request

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

249(3) of the Act and at the same time, before passing order, it was duty bound to enquire in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act which was also not complied with by the first appellate authority. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas

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. 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

b) of sub-section (2) of section 154 had been filed by the assessee within the statutory time limit but was not disposed of by the authority concerned within the time specified under sub- section (7) of section 154, it may be disposed of by that authority even after the expiry of the statutory time limit, on merits

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)

249(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay and also erred in not appreciating that the appellant is a vegetable vendor and the assessment order was passed ex-parte. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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 Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2025 2 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan

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

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)

249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act, and even thereafter for over 1647 days cannot be condoned. In the result, the delay in filing of appeal is not condoned and the appeal sought to be filed belatedly after 1647 days of delay is not admitted and dismissed accordingly. 4. In result the appeal