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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

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

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

2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both parties that the assessee’s instant four cases involve 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

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively.\n2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee's behest.\nShe is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.\n3. The delay of 311 days in filing all the assessee's instant\nappeals is condoned in light of larger interest of justice as well

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

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 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. 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 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