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

condone the delay caused in filing application by the assessee in form AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and CIT (Exemption) Bhopal section 80G(5

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 12. Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 12. Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings

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

5. We notice that the appellant/assessee filed a delay condonation application before the first appellate authority. According to the impugned order, the contents of the delay condonation application read as under : “1. That assesses was assessed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 with section

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 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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

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 cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143(1) dated

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 cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals on 04.11.2023 against the intimations u/s. 143(1) dated

LD SARVODAYA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Vs. Ito 2(1)(1), G – 11, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccl7961N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 208 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Managing

5. Considered the rival submissions and the application for condonation of delay. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. Further at the time of hearing , we observe that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

5), Etawah.\nPAN: BFWPP4889J\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nSh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate\nDepartment by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR\nDate of hearing\n15.07.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n30.07.2025\nORDER\nPER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:\nThis appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned\norder dated 15.05.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10188204 by\nLd. Commissioner of Income

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

condoning the delay. Without prejudice to the above 5. BECAUSE the proceedings under section 147 have neither been validly initiated

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural

MAHARAJA AGRASEN SEWA SADAN,SELECT CITY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AYAKAR BAHWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maharaja Agrasen Sewa Vs. Ito (Exemption) Sadan, Mughal Road, Kamla Ayakar Bhawan Nagar, Agra Uttar Pradesh 282005 Pan No. Aaatm6506F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act 1961[hereinafter referred as ‘the Act. 2. An adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee to adjourn the case, no ground to adjourn the case hence, the application is rejected. The bench decided to proceed to decide the issue with the assistance of ld. D.R. 3. The assessee has raised following

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 had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals. 6. It is true that there is huge delay

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 had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals. 6. It is true that there is huge delay

CHELARAM BALWANI,RATHI BUILDING KE PASS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

condone the delay. 5. At the outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR for the assessee that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under section