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

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

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

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

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 KRISHAK SAHAKARI SHAKKAR KARKHANA,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 249(2) r.w.s. 249(3) of IT Act, 1961 and is being dismissed as non-maintainable. 4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable.” 4. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal filed before him was delayed by 47 days and no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the assessee

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

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

ATMA RAM AUTO ENTERPRISES,AGRA vs. ACIT(TDS),, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1. Because the learned CIT(A)-1, Agra has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing the ITA 06 & 07/Agra/2016 2 appeal of the assessee. The appeal be directed to be admitted. 2. Because the learned CIT(A)-1, Agra has erred both on facts

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 DEVI,AURAIYA vs. ITO1(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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed on 12.05.2025 against