MOHD. YUNUS WARSI,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

delay condonation application read as under : “1. That assesses was assessed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 with section 144B of Income

MUSTAKEEN AHAMAD,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(Appeals), considering the advocate's negligence and the fact that the service of the order was on 07.03.2019, with the appeal filed 64 days later, which is a meager duration beyond the 30-day limit.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "144

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 in filing of appeal against the ex-party order passed under section under section 147 r.w.s. 144

AMIT MAHESWARI,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay was not condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["147", "144", "154"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

condonation of delay in filing first appeal. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 17.10.20 against the assessment order dated 05.12.19 passed u/s. 144 read with section

LD SARVODAYA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Vs. Ito 2(1)(1), G – 11, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccl7961N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None 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 Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 208 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Managing

condone the delay. 6. Further at the time of hearing , we observe that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under section 144

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,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: 2012-13

delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank 2 | P a g e account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara

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 were recorded

CHELARAM BALWANI,RATHI BUILDING KE PASS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

condone the delay. 5. At the outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR for the assessee that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144

LAYKA SINGH GURJAR,GWALIOR vs. ITO-3(1) , GWALILOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act. 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

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

condone the delay caused in filing this appeal before ITAT. 3. Brief facts state that the appellant assessee is engaged in the wholesale trading business of cement and filed his return of income on 15.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,47,150/-. The assessee had declared gross profit at Rs.27,08,733/- and Net Profit of Rs.5

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

144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for 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

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

144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for 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

RAHUL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

condonation of delay in filing of appeal MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR! The appellant is preferring appeal before Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra on 1.01.2025 against order ex-parte order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (the 'CIT (Appeals)*) in the matter of assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Income

VINOD KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Hence, I am proceeding to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR of the Revenue and the material available on record. 5. At the outset, it was noticed that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order

RAHUL GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Rahul Gupta, Ito, Ward-2(1)(1), H. No.11A, Kala Kunj Maruti Aayakar Bhawan, Estate, Agra, Vs Sanjay Place, Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Bskpk2217E Appellant Respondent

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 01.11.2018 2. This appeal is delay of 407 days in filing the appeal before us. In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation application for condoning the delay, which is reproduced as below:- “MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. The Appellant, Rahul Gupta is filing

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is non-filer and initiated proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within

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

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same vide impugned order. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal on the following grounds : “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts