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

148 dated 30.07.2022, in response to 2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued in the instant case by the learned AO which becomes fatal

SACHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,ASHOK NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 days. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay

SACHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,VILLAGE KHIRIYA DEWAT POST KHIRIYA DEWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 days. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay

SACHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,ASHOK NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 days. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay

SACHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,ASHOK NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 days. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay

SACHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,ASHOK NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 days. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay

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

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

2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal against the ex-party order passed under section under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide, reasonable and sufficient

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

2 | P a g e is grossly arbitrary, wrong, unjust, illegal and against the law and facts of the case. 9- BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground or grounds of Appeal, at the time of hearing of Appeal.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is delay

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to\ndecide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm.\nThe return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring\ntotal income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural\nincome of Rs.49,50,000/- which

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

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

148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return of income on 14.04.2021 in response thereof. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings

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

148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return of income on 14.04.2021 in response thereof. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings

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]

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, the assessee had filed an adjournment petition, which was rejected and the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee on 31.01.2025 and is delayed by 10 months In this regard

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

2 | P a g e in the Bank Account represented undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts and in law adding a sum of Rs. 13,90,000 under section 69A of the LT. Act, 1961 without appreciating the source of cash deposited

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

2 | P a g e during the year under consideration. Assessing Officer issued notice dated 25.03.2019 u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee after taking approval from competent authority, for reopening of the concluded assessment. The assessee had not filed return u/s 139. .In compliance thereof to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring