SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean

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

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

24, Joy Builders M.P. – 476 111 Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore M.P. – 452 018 PAN : AABAA5173A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.N. Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2026 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals have been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

24, Joy Builders M.P. – 476 111 Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore M.P. – 452 018 PAN : AABAA5173A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.N. Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2026 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals have been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

2. There was a delay of 24 days in filing appeals in respect of 37 branches out of 88 branches located at distant places. 3. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that after receipt of the intimation/statement of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, the branches had to report to the respective regional head offices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

2. There was a delay of 24 days in filing appeals in respect of 37 branches out of 88 branches located at distant places. 3. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that after receipt of the intimation/statement of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, the branches had to report to the respective regional head offices

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-) 2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under. 1) Land 03/12/2018 Value

S.P. TEA ESTATE (INDIA)(P)(LTD),GWALIOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] S.P.Tea Estate (India) (P)(Ltd.), Acit, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Inderganj Police Circle-2, Station, Jayendraganj Lashkar, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474002 Madhya Pradesh-474009 Pan-Aaics2523F Appellant Respondent

24 of the appeal set, which is reproduced as below:- 3 ITA No.249/Agr/2025 3. We have carefully considered the facts stated in the said application and in the affidavit. Upon consideration, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the said appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 976 days and admit

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]

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 and HDFC Bank Ltd. respectively. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee

JAHNVI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMTION, AGRA RCC, AGRA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.141/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Jahnvi Educational Trust Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ Vs. 130, Sector-9, Avas Vikas Colony Aaykar Bhawan Mg Road Sikandra Up – 282007 Sanjay Placed, Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtj-1711-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

delay of 7 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The assessee being registered entity u/s 12AA filed return of income declaring deficit of Rs.18.92 Lacs. The trust is stated to be engaged in carrying out educational activities. The CPC denied the claim made by assessee u/s 11 on the ground that the details of registration u/s 12AB

KARAN KANT JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

delay of 288 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal ground and stated that the reopening approval was given in a mechanical manner and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the same, Ld. AR ahs referred to various judicial decisions, the copies of which have

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition , in the interest of substantial justice, I find that the Assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before this Tribunal in time and accordingly

JAY JAY RAM YADAV,VILL. SUHAYA BLO.BAMORI, GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Jay Jay Ram Yadav, Vill. Suhaya Blo.Bamori, Guna Guna Pan :Aghpy4333R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Harish Sagani, Adv. Department By Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2025 Order

section 254(1) of the Act. 5. We keep in mind all these peculiar facts and circumstances and conclude in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not treated as a precedent. We make it clear before 2

MEERA AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT-1, GWALIOR

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/appellant’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex- parte. 3. Identical delay of 236 days in filing the assessee’s instant three appeals is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 4. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently

MEERA AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT-1, GWALIOR

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/appellant’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex- parte. 3. Identical delay of 236 days in filing the assessee’s instant three appeals is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 4. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently