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

3 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient and the delay

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to\ndecide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm.\nThe return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring\ntotal income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural\nincome of Rs.49,50,000/- which

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

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

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

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

MOHD. YUNUS WARSI,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

delay condonation application read as under : “1. That assesses was assessed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 with section 144B of Income tax and whole amount of Rs.5453100/-being sales proceed deposited in Bank. 2. The assessment was made on 23.02.2022 and due date of filing of appeal was 22.03.2022. 3

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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient

AARUSH JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 249(2) of the Act and the order was passed on merit. The law on the subject is well settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal does not come into existence legally, and in such absence, the court is wholly without jurisdiction to hear or decide the same on merit. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union

SNEHA PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second\nappeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024.\nThe reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that\nthe e-main Id mentioned in Form No. 35 was of assessee's earlier counsel,\nwho did not inform

JAGVIR SINGH KUNTAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2), MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. I order accordingly. 5. On merits, ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing 4 | P a g e Officer during

MANOJ JAIRAMDAS BHOJWANI,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2004-05

delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing first appeal ex parte in violation of section

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

delay in filing appeal. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant

OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant

AJAY GUPTA,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICR 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

delayed by 32 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay