SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay

SMT SMT. FAZILA PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay

SMT SMT. FAZILA PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay

SHRI JAVED ALI PRADHAN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.294 & 295/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 V. Smt. Fazila Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Akppp 6380 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.297 To 299, 300 & 301/Rpr/2016 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07 V. Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, The Dy. Commissioner – Opp. Old Holy Heart School, Of Income Tax-1(1), Alina House, Raipur (C.G.) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). [Pan: Agbpa 1758 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Akshay Ringasia, Ca & Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash – Sharma, Sr.Dr / Smt.Ila M.Parmar, Cit-Dr : 07.08.2023 सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. ITA Nos.294-295, 297-301/RPR/2016 :: 3 :: 3. With reference to the aforesaid provisions of sec.253 of the Act, wherein, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the 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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

delay occurred in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The relevant contents of the condonation application are culled out as follows: “1. The Appellant derives income from hosiery business and was required to make TDS as per provision of section 194A, 194C, 1941 of the Income-tax Act, 1961and other relevant sections. She was also required to file returns

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

condonation of delay read a/w. affidavit dated 07.09.2023, I find that the only reason given by the assessee to explain the aforesaid delay was that 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. For the sake of completeness, the reasons stated by the assessee

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

condonation of delay read a/w. affidavit dated 07.09.2023, I find that the only reason given by the assessee to explain the aforesaid delay was that 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. For the sake of completeness, the reasons stated by the assessee

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned the delay involved in present case. 10. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR pressed following additional grounds: Additional Ground No. 1 dated 04.04.2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 144 by Addl. CIT is invalid as he was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee firm for making assessment

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)

4. Further, vide letter dated 06.03.2023, the ld. DR has filed his written submissions challenging the condonation of delay as well as the additional ground filed by the assessee, which read as under :- Sub:- Appeal filed under section

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:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine, refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating the facts of the case and provisions of relevant law, and 1 Vinod

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’).

condonation of delay filed by the assessee was neither genuine nor valid. 7. After thoughtful consideration of the Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020, we are of the considered view that the admission of any appeal under section 249(2) and 249(4

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