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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain such time barred appeals. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271

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

condone the delay caused in filing first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass speaking

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

condone the delay caused in filing first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass speaking

SMT MEERA DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(1)(4), ETAWAH

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative did not appear, and the cases were proceeded ex-parte. A significant delay in filing the appeals was condoned

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

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

condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It transpires from the perusal of records that first appeal was filed before the first appellate authority on 30.09.2025, by a delay of about 46 days against the penalty order dated 16.07.2025 passed u/s 271(B) of the Act. It appears that the reasons for the delay

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

condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It transpires from the perusal of records that first appeal was filed before the first appellate authority on 30.09.2025, by a delay of about 46 days against the penalty order dated 16.07.2025 passed u/s 271(B) of the Act. It appears that the reasons for the delay

KAVITA RALHAN,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F proceedings, as the case may be, involve identical issue of condonation of delay

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

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

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

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

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

SMT MEERA DEVI ,AURAIYA vs. ITO W1(1)(4), ETAWAH

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

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned

SMT MEERA KUMARI,2010-11 vs. ITO 1(1)(4), ETAWAH

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

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned

SMT MEERA KUMARE,AURAIYA vs. ITO 1(1)(4), ETAWAH

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

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned