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

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

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 in not deciding the appeal on merits ignoring that there was a (reasonable cause) for omitting to make compliance during

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

2) of the Act is 30 days. However 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

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

2) of the Act is 30 days. However 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

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

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural

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

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

143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in limine, being beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 249(2) of the Act. 4. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, with others on merit, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘) dated by the Assessing Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‗ld. AO‘). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the revenue before us by 846 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

2)(5), Etawah.\nPAN: BFWPP4889J\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nSh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate\nDepartment by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR\nDate of hearing\n15.07.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n30.07.2025\nORDER\nPER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:\nThis appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned\norder dated 15.05.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10188204 by\nLd. Commissioner of Income

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

143(1) of the Act by a delay of about 1302 days. The reasons for the delay before ld CIT(A) were stated as under: “Due to severe injury resulting in gangrene, the foot of the CA had to be cut, who is still not well. Medical papers are enclosed. In such circumstance appeal U/s 246A could not be filed

MAHARAJA AGRASEN SEWA SADAN,SELECT CITY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AYAKAR BAHWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maharaja Agrasen Sewa Vs. Ito (Exemption) Sadan, Mughal Road, Kamla Ayakar Bhawan Nagar, Agra Uttar Pradesh 282005 Pan No. Aaatm6506F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act 1961[hereinafter referred as ‘the Act. 2. An adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee to adjourn the case, no ground to adjourn the case hence, the application is rejected. The bench decided to proceed to decide the issue with the assistance of ld. D.R. 3. The assessee has raised following

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay

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

2 2017-18 14.12.2022 14.12.2022 05.05.2023 50 14.02.2023 3 2018-19 14.12.2022 14.12.2022 05.05.2023 50 2.3. In this regard, the ld. AR filed a condonation petition and a supporting medical certificate, which is reproduced as under:- 2.4. The ld. DR objected to the delay in filing of the appeal before us and also submitted that the delay in filing