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

delay of 2350 days, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable cause duly explained in the condonation petition. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy available under Section 154

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

delay of 2350 days, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable cause duly explained in the condonation petition. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy available under Section 154

KALPTARU VIKASH SAMITI,KOTESHWAR ROAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 154 of the Act only in the month of November 2023 when the income tax department called the assessee with regard to payment of outstanding taxes. Thereafter the assessee collected the order from the department and had filed an appeal before the Learned CITA with a delay of 454 days. The learned CITA graciously condoned

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

section 154 of the Act along with application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Inconvenience

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

section 154 of the Act along with application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Inconvenience

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

section 154 of the Act along with application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Inconvenience

BRAJENDRA VIKRAM SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to decide the same on merits. Shri Brajendra Vikram Singh vs. PCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return

BRIJESH CHANDRA,KONCH (JALAUN) vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NFAC NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Brijesh Chandra, Vs. Ito, Vill & Post-Bhandari Ward-2(1)(5), Padri, Konch, Jalaun, Orai, Up Orai, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afgpc1541M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

condoned the delay in filing of appeal before it by 10 months by the assessee. I find that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy before the learned AO by pursuing rectification application under section 154

SMT VIMLA DEVI RAM LAXMAN SHARMA SHIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMTION, AGRA RCC, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsmt. Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Ito, Village Gadi Thana, Ward Exemption, Shamshabad, Agra. Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aakas3559F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca 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 Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1650 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Inordinate

delay is inordinate and should not be condoned. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee has inadvertently filed the ROI under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act whereas the assessee is in the field

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND,BHIND vs. AESSESSING OFFICER TDS OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVWAN CITY CENTRE FLOOR FIRST

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

BABA SAUDAN SINGH VEERMATI DEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HATHRAS vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalbaba Saudan Singh Veermati Vs. Commissioner Of Devi Educational Society, Income Tax Village Kurawali, Post Luheta Qadiri Building, Marris Tehsil Sadabad, Road, Aligarh, Dist. Hathras Up-281306 Uttar Pradesh-202001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtb8953C Appellant .. Respondent

154 petition, it could not be held as an aggrieved party so as to file the instant appeal. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and revenue’s contentions. We first of all deem it appropriate to with the assessee’s delay of 6 years 4 months and 8 days. We reiterate that the assessee

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

154 was rejected by the AO vide order dated 09.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) ,and learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by referring to Rule 128(8) and 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, wherein the delay in filing form No. 67 was not condoned

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