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

154 of the 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

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

154 of the 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

SMT VIMLA DEVI RAM LAXMAN SHARMA SHIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMTION, AGRA RCC, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsmt. Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Ito, Village Gadi Thana, Ward Exemption, Shamshabad, Agra. Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aakas3559F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1650 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Inordinate

u/s 154 of the Act. Due to the ill advise, they have not filed any appeal but waited for the rectification order. The delay was understandable and there was sufficient cause in delay filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), hence, in the interest of justice, we 3 condone

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND,BHIND vs. AESSESSING OFFICER TDS OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVWAN CITY CENTRE FLOOR FIRST

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these appeals are time-barred due to a delay of 84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these appeals are time-barred due to a delay of 84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these appeals are time-barred due to a delay of 84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these appeals are time-barred due to a delay of 84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Delay was condoned by CIT(E), Lucknow]. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154

NAVIN CHAND,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed our direction

u/s 154 of the learned ACIT without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 2. In it is the case of the assessee before us that the assessee had inadvertently included the exempted income amounting to ₹ 3 23600 in total income the return of income. 3. The assessee has received the tax demand of ₹ 1,57,780 under section

BRIJESH CHANDRA,KONCH (JALAUN) vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NFAC NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Brijesh Chandra, Vs. Ito, Vill & Post-Bhandari Ward-2(1)(5), Padri, Konch, Jalaun, Orai, Up Orai, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afgpc1541M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 21.03.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal by the assessee by 1167 days. Considering the reason adduced