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

condonation of delay. Ld. CIT(Appeals), also dismissed assessee’s first ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 appeal preferred against the penalty order

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

delay in filing this appeal too shall also stand condoned, and I proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 17 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 13.2 This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 115/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16 filed by the assesse before ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra

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

delay in filing this appeal too shall also stand condoned, and I proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 17 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 13.2 This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 115/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16 filed by the assesse before ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra

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

delay in filing this appeal too shall also stand condoned, and I proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 17 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 13.2 This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 115/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16 filed by the assesse before ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra

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

penalty under section 272A(l)(d)of the 'Act’. 2. BECAUSE, on the fact of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) heard in refusing to condoned the delay

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

penalty order. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delays in filing, without condoning the delay. The assessee

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

penalty order before the ld. CIT (A) and the\nsame is also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard,\nld. AR submitted that assessee has submitted application of condonation

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay accordingly caused in filing all these three appeals. 5. Since all these three appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay accordingly caused in filing all these three appeals. 5. Since all these three appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay accordingly caused in filing all these three appeals. 5. Since all these three appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty

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

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay accordingly caused in filing both these appeals. 5. Since both these appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty

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

condone the delay accordingly caused in filing both these appeals. 5. Since both these appeals are interlinked to each other, inasmuch as the penalty

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

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

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

condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It transpires from the perusal of records that first appeal was filed before the first appellate authority on 30.09.2025, by a delay of about 46 days against the penalty

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

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

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

condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It transpires from the perusal of records that first appeal was filed before the first appellate authority on 30.09.2025, by a delay of about 46 days against the penalty

PRAVEEN KUMAR KATIYAR,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) dated 27.02.2025 was received by appellant/assessee physically, he came to know about passing of the ex parte impugned order and took immediate steps to file the appeal. The appellant/assessee has also filed an affidavit in support of these facts mentioned in the delay condonation

RAHUL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

delay of 296 days in filing present appeal be condoned and it be heard on its merit as the 'appellant' was prevented from filing the appeal within time due to non communication of the appellate order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned 'CIT (Appeals): 4. It is submitted that the 'appollant' could come to know about appellate order dated