SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condonation of delay. Ld. CIT(Appeals), also dismissed assessee’s first ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order

SULEMAN KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

income of assessee at Rs.1,31,84,654/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing first appeal and on merit as well. 5. Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that ld. CIT(Appeals

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

SUDHIR YADAV,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(5), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(5), Agra. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, the assessee had filed an adjournment petition, which was rejected and the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The assessee has filed this appeal after delay of about seven

MUSTAKEEN AHAMAD,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Income-tax Inspector raised the demand. The\nassessee has filed an affidavit in support of the said facts. Prayed to\ncondone the delay caused in filing this appeal. In view of the facts stated\nin assessee's affidavit, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay.\nSaid delay caused in filing this appeal is accordingly condoned.\n3. Learned counsel

MUBIM BEGAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Income Tax Portal on 07.05.2025. Owing to this reason the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period of limitation. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation application and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay in filing this appeal. The delay

SNEHA PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") for the\n assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed\nassessee's first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.26,99,500/- being the\ndifference between the fair market value of property sold of Rs.55,99,500/-\nand declared

JITENDRA PAL SINGH,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)1 JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018- 19, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 12.05.2025 against the impugned order passed on 28.02.2025 by a delay of about 13 days. The reasons mentioned

RAM SWAROOP AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 31.05.2025 against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 by a delay of about 11 days. The reasons mentioned

MUKESH KUMAR,AURAIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4), AURAIYA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

addition and assessee also filed appeal against the order of ld. CIT\n(A) dated 20.02.2025 for AY 2017-18 affirming the penalty order dated\n22.09.2022 passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1971 (for\nshort 'the Act').\n2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank 2 | P a g e account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara

MUKESH KUMAR,AURAIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4), AURAIYA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

addition and a penalty order, both for Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delays in filing and failure to seek condonation of delay.", "held": "The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the delay was due to lack of awareness of the e-proceedings portal and not intentional. Considering this and the interest

KASTURI DEVI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

delay caused in filing this appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts state that Smt. Kasturi Devi enjoys income from sale and purchase of potatoes and garlic(Lahsun), pension income, agricultural income and interest income. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.12.2020, declaring total income at Rs.3,36,650/-. It was found that

KAPIL KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 21.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We are proceeding to adjudicate the matter with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that there

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Income Tax Act, 1961, and the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but caused by a bona fide belief that the issue would be resolved in rectification proceedings. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay despite established judicial principles that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations (Collector, Land Acquisition

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Income Tax Act, 1961, and the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but caused by a bona fide belief that the issue would be resolved in rectification proceedings. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay despite established judicial principles that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations (Collector, Land Acquisition

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

addition of Rs.15,880/- as undisclosed interest income by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed consequential penalty of Rs.2,73,490/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Perused the records