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

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of delay

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

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of delay

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

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of delay

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

section 249 of Act and record the reasons for such condonation or otherwise in the appeal order passed under clause (x);" 5.4. I find that delay of 3170 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While 'interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause of 'substantial justice', period of 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’).

section 249(2) and 249(4) of the Act. Hence, the rejection of delay condonation application of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore, held unjustified. 9. The right of appeal of assessee is to the extent specified in the Act. The Act read with the above Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 determines

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 1722 days involved in filing of the present cross-objection by the L/heir of the assesssee. Before parting, we may herein observe, that as the assessee even otherwise by way of the present cross- objection is assailing the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for reopening his case