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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

condoning inordinate delay of 3170 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations

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

5 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 the Ld. DR that as the delay involved in filing of the captioned appeal of 191 days was clearly an inordinate delay with no justifiable reasons, therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed on the said count itself. 10. I have

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

5 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 the Ld. DR that as the delay involved in filing of the captioned appeal of 191 days was clearly an inordinate delay with no justifiable reasons, therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed on the said count itself. 10. I have

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)

5 Dolphin Promoters and Builders vs Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur Representative (in short “Ld. AR”), submitted that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 151 days for the reason that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was never physically served on the assessee, whereas in appeal memo in Form No. 35, manually filed

RAJKUMAR THADWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), 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

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:

5 Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) exercise of the powers conferred under section 250(6B) of the Act. We have also taken note of the categorical observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not filed any justification for condonation of delay. After thoughtful consideration of the impugned order, we are unable to infer

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeals by the aforementioned assessee’s. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the explanation of the aforementioned assessees as regards the delay involved in filing of the captioned appeals before us. The government officers