SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

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

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

business or profession. Since Appellant trust created through Will by Late Smt. Kusum Bai on 11.05.2001 and covered under ii proviso to Sec 164(1) of the Income Tax Act and hence assesses income is to be taxed at Normal Rate of Income as applicable to individual and not Maximum Marginal Rate. Thus appellant trust income should

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 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, 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

RAKHI AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakhi Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Krishna Bhawan Opp, Gwalior Morena Wala Halwai, Daulat Ganj Lashkar, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aeapa9383A Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made in some of ₹13,84,500/- as unexplained money in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed both the first appeals of assessee as barred by limitation upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. ITA No.169 & 170/Agr/2025 2. These appeals have been preferred on the ground, amongst

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed both the first appeals of assessee as barred by limitation upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. ITA No.169 & 170/Agr/2025 2. These appeals have been preferred on the ground, amongst

M/SWAHEGURU BUSINESS (P) LTD.,SARV NAGAR vs. DCIT-CC, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER,AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.46 to 52/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 to 2018-19) M/s. Waheguru Business P. Ltd. Vs.. DCIT-CC Sarv Nagar, C.P. Mission Aaykar Bhawan Jhansi – Agra PAN No.AABCW0558P (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 53 to 59/Agra/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR

ASHOK KUMAR PATHAK,MORENA vs. DCIT 2(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of about 177 days is accordingly condoned. 3. Brief facts state that assessee is engaged in the business of labour contractor and filed return of income

BRAJENDRA VIKRAM SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to decide the same on merits. Shri Brajendra Vikram Singh vs. PCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 2. BECAUSE

ADARSH SINGH KUSHWAH,GWALIOR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), GWALIOR , GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Adarsh Singh Kushwah, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tansen Nagar, Hazira, Gwalior, Tax, Circle-3(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh-474002 Vs City Centre, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474011 Pan-Ajvpk5450E Appellant Respondent

delay. The relevant extract of the condonation application is reproduced as below:- “MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR, 1. That, the assessee is an individual having income from salary, house property, business

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,ETAH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay caused in filing this appeal before ITAT. 3. Brief facts state that the appellant assessee is engaged in the wholesale trading business of cement and filed his return of income

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay of 394 days in filing this appeal belatedly by the assessee with ITAT beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3), and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that after making enquiries on the basis of AIR/NMS, reasons for reopening of the concluded assessment were recorded

HARVEER PARIHAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

income of the assessee from undisclosed/unexplained sources. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 21.05.2025 against the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 by a delay of about 30 days. The main reason mentioned in the delay condonation application filed by assessee is that the Ld. AR was out of station and busy

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MORENA vs. WARD 1, MORENA

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

delay of 44 days in the\nappeals which stand condoned.\n2. In AY 2010-11, Ld. AO determined income at Rs.152.63 Lacs after\nvarious additions / disallowances under the head ‘business