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

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation

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

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

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in treating the assessment order framed by the Learned Ajit Singh Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as non-est in the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Act.\n2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second\nappeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024.\nThe reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that\nthe e-main Id mentioned in Form No. 35 was of assessee's earlier counsel,\nwho did not inform the assessee

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

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

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

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

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

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

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

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

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 by ld. CIT(Appeals

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

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 by ld. CIT(Appeals

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

RAJAT GOEL (HUF),MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 21.09.2022 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That the Ld. NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred on facts and in law while passing the appellate order u/s 250 holding "the appeal is not entertained and is dismissed

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]

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 19.02.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case:-The assessment in this case was 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

SONY RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay in filing of appeals before me and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA Nos. 214 & 215/AGR/2025 Sony Residency Pvt. Ltd 3. I find that the assessment order has been framed under section 144, r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

SONY RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay in filing of appeals before me and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA Nos. 214 & 215/AGR/2025 Sony Residency Pvt. Ltd 3. I find that the assessment order has been framed under section 144, r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not admitted. 5. Against the order

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI, M.P. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer had information that the assessee had deposited cash in saving bank account and had a cash transaction amounting to Rs.60,62,100/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. & Axis Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer gave several opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not file any reply. On the basis of further enquiries

SHOBHA DEVI ,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI,UP

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shobha Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 285, Suri Wali Gali, Ward-2(3)(1), Near Masjid Pratap Jhansi Pura Nagar, Sipri Bzaaar, Jhansi, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpd4091R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.10.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (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 217 days. Considering the reasons adduced