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

35 available on record, assessee filed first appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received the penalty order

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

35 was of assessee's earlier counsel,\nwho did not inform the assessee about passing of the impugned order,\nwhich led the assessee to file this appeal with delay. The assessee has\nalso filed an affidavit in support of delay condonation application. Prayed to\ncondone the delay.\n3.\nConsidering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation\napplication supported

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

35 nor moved any delay condonation application before ld. 3 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 CIT(Appeals). However, the appellant assessee has moved delay condonation application along with death certificate of his mother before this Tribunal. The cause for the delay has been shown to be serious ailment of assessee’s mother and her subsequent demise

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

35 nor moved any delay condonation application before ld. 3 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 CIT(Appeals). However, the appellant assessee has moved delay condonation application along with death certificate of his mother before this Tribunal. The cause for the delay has been shown to be serious ailment of assessee’s mother and her subsequent demise

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, JALAUN,JALAUN vs. ITO EXAMPTION AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 1168 days. 5. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

35. I humbly request you to condone the delay made and admit my appeal and do not treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,1, NEW PATEL NAGAR, KONCH, JALAUN, KONCH S.O (JALAUN) vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

35. I humbly request you to condone the delay made and admit my appeal and do not treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

35. I humbly request you to condone the delay made and admit my appeal and do not treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

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

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the appellant to bring on record the facts surrounding the delay in filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, and the department could not controvert the same.The reasons 4 | P a g e stipulated for aforesaid delay is shifting of the assessee from Agra

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank 2 | P a g e account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara

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

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 282 of the 1961 Act and Rule 127 of the 1962 Rules. When technicalities are pitted against advancement of substantial justice, then the Court will lean towards advancement of justice unless malice or negligence is at writ large. The assessee is not likely to gain anything by filing this appeal belatedly. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order