PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-) 2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under. 1) Land 03/12/2018 Value

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

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 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled

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

143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13

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

143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13

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

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143(1

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

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143(1

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

condoning the delay despite established judicial principles that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations (Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, 167 ITR 471, SC). 4. That the learned CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the ITO (Exemption), Agra, and after conducting multiple hearings on merits, erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay

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

condoning the delay despite established judicial principles that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations (Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, 167 ITR 471, SC). 4. That the learned CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the ITO (Exemption), Agra, and after conducting multiple hearings on merits, erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay

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

1. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies its liability for being subjected to 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 of 49 days ignoring the detailed submissions filed by the assessee. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. C1T(A) erred

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against the principle natural justice, Unlawful and illegal. 2) That

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,1, NEW PATEL NAGAR, KONCH, JALAUN, KONCH S.O (JALAUN) vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against the principle natural justice, Unlawful and illegal. 2) That

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against the principle natural justice, Unlawful and illegal. 2) That

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

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

143(1) on 20.03.2020, the same was not available during the course of processing of ITR, therefore, it was held by the Assessing Officer that it is not a fit case to covered u/s 154 as it is not a mistake apparent from record and hence, the rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 was rejected

SMT MEERA DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(1)(4), ETAWAH

143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative did not appear, and the cases were proceeded ex-parte. A significant delay in filing the appeals was condoned

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

1)(3), Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal by 68 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest