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

9. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

13. However, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has not discussed whether the assessee fulfils all other conditions mentioned in the section as he rejected it on technical ground. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances we hold that the assessee had made the application in Form 10AB within the prescribed time limit and hence it is valid application. Therefore, we direct

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

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 249(2) of the Act and the order was passed on merit. The law on the subject is well settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal does not come into existence legally, and in such absence, the court is wholly without jurisdiction to hear or decide the same on merit. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a mistake apparent from record and not convinced with the submission, he rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 3 | P a g e ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 7. Similarly, in the next assessment year also similar issue raised by the assessee

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a mistake apparent from record and not convinced with the submission, he rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 3 | P a g e ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 7. Similarly, in the next assessment year also similar issue raised by the assessee

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on mere presumption, surmises and conjectures without rejecting the explanation and the books of accounts maintained during the regular course of business by the appellant.” 5. Perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 6. At the very outset, ld. Representative

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 5. The assessee is a body corporate formed under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (UPUPD Act, 1973). The object of the assessee as per UPUPD Act, 1973 is as follows: “The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the development

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

Section 282 of the 1961 Act and Rule 127 of the 1962 Rules. When technicalities are pitted against advancement of substantial justice, then the Court will lean towards advancement of justice unless malice or negligence is at writ large. The assessee is not likely to gain anything by filing this appeal belatedly. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order

M/S KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI,ETAWAH vs. DCIT-CPC, AGRA

In the result, for statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & S.A. No. 04/Agra/2019) (Assessment Year-2015-16)

13 of Income Tax Act, 1961 5. The appellant craves leave to add around, alter or withdraw any round of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal during the prudency of appeal.” 2. The assessee society is formed under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Adhiniyam, 1964 and registered u/s 11 of the 12AA of the Act. The assessee society

DINESH KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), 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]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act on 18.11.2019 by making addition of Rs.15,13,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account maintained with Vijaya Bank, Agran Cantt. Agra. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

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

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

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

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA vs. MAMTA SINGH, AGRA

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

condoned the delay and admitted the C.O. for hearing. The Learned A.R. was directed to proceed with his arguments. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT [Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the entire impugned additions on technical grounds, and not on merits, without appreciating complete facts

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed