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

35 and grounds of appeal along with statement of facts and order passed by LJAO. Brief fact of the appeal is that appellant was 3 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 issued intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect

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

35 and grounds of appeal along with statement of facts and order passed by LJAO. Brief fact of the appeal is that appellant was 3 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 issued intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect

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

35 and grounds of appeal along with statement of facts and order passed by LJAO. Brief fact of the appeal is that appellant was 3 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 issued intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect

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

35 and grounds of appeal along with statement of facts and order passed by LJAO. Brief fact of the appeal is that appellant was 3 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 issued intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect

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:

condonation of delay, which is mandatory when an appeal is filed after the due date. In Form 35, at Column No. 2(c), the appellant has mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 25.03.2025, and since the appeal was filed on 06.04.2025, he claims that the appeal is within the time prescribed under section

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

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

condoned. 23. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue involves a delay of 3966 days, which, as stated by the Ld. A.R and, rightly so, is an inordinate delay. 29 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Considering that the Revenue had delayed filing the present appeal before us, i.e., filed the appeal after the lapse

AGRAWAL SPONGE LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-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.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

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’).

condone the delay in filing Form 35 without appreciating that the delay was neither will full nor deliberate and that 1 Savita Sanjay Marghade vs. ITO, Bhilai sufficient cause within the meaning of section

STATE RESOURCE CENTRE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO- WARD 1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.752 & 753/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 State Resource Centre Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aadas0287K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

35 as well as condonation petition. 3. I have carefully considered the contents therein. The case of the assessee is that it is a private entity doing work for the Central Government on time to time basis i.e. providing adult education programme in the various areas of the state as per the direction of the Central Government

STATE RESOURCE CENTRE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.752 & 753/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 State Resource Centre Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aadas0287K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

35 as well as condonation petition. 3. I have carefully considered the contents therein. The case of the assessee is that it is a private entity doing work for the Central Government on time to time basis i.e. providing adult education programme in the various areas of the state as per the direction of the Central Government

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

condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

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

35 itself and it cannot be attributed for any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee since there was no receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by the assessee physically while the assessee has already opted as “No” as observed herein before and for that reason, the said delay has occurred

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

35 itself and it cannot be attributed for any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee since there was no receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by the assessee physically while the assessee has already opted as “No” as observed herein before and for that reason, the said delay has occurred

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

35 itself and it cannot be attributed for any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee since there was no receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by the assessee physically while the assessee has already opted as “No” as observed herein before and for that reason, the said delay has occurred

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

condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

BINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR ERSTW. ITO-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.587/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Binod Kumar Agrawal H-401 Maruti Lifestyle, Kota Road, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aefpa4168Q

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

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