SH. RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY,MATHURA vs. ACIT-CPC TDS., , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPS-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

MAA KAILADEVI OIL INDUSTRIES,MORENA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bheem Nagar, Ater Road, Gwalior Porsa, Morena, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aasfm4432G Assessee By : Shri Ramakant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Assessment Year 2016-17. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 366 days in filing of 2. appeal before us by the assessee. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and in the application filed for the condonation, the assessee submitted that the tax matters of the assessee being looked after by another professional advisor

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

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

reopening of the concluded assessment. The assessee had not filed return u/s 139. .In compliance thereof to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring nil income. Notice u/s. 142(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee in response thereof submitted bank statement, but failed to furnish any evidence

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 that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals). 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential

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 that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals). 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential

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

condoning the delay. Without prejudice to the above 5. BECAUSE the proceedings under section 147 have neither been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with the provisions of law and the assessment order passed in pursuance thereof is liable to be declared void-ab- initio. 6. BECAUSE in the absence of valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment

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

assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal has been filed on 06.08.2025 against the impugned order dated 24.03.2024 by a delay of about 440 days. In his condonation application, the assessee has assigned the reason for delay that

SOMENDRA PACHAURI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 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: 2019-20

reopened u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25.03.2023, which stood un-responded. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 142(1) and show cause notices u/s. 144 of the Act were issued, but for no avail. Therefore, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,26,75,259/-, vide assessment

GORA BAI SAHU ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh. 2. There is a delay of 9 months and 19 days in filing of the present appeal before us. In this regard, a condonation petition has been filed by the Shri Ramcharan Sahu, aged about 84 years husband of late Gora Bai Sahu (assessee in this case

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits the same for adjudication as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Co-operative Marketing Society registered under Madhya Co-operative

OM PRAKASH,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Baramai, Ward-4(3)(4), Sadabad, Hathras Hathras (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dkbpp7713K

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The preliminary legal issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Om Prakash 4. I have heard the rival submissions

SH ABHISHEK GUPTA ,AGRA vs. ITO W2(2)(1),, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

condone the delay of 331 days in filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) by 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

JAGDEESH PRASAD,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AAYKAR BHAWAN SANJAY PLACE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.52,25,000/-in the accounts maintained with State Bank of India and HDFC Bank Ltd. respectively. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee had not filed his return of income. Several opportunities as noted

RAJESH,KASGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), KASGANJ, KASGANJ

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

assessment year 2011-12, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noted that this appeal was filed on 19.07.2025 against the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 by a delay of about 447 days. According to the delay condonation application, appellant states that he is a resident of village