MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 231 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessment was reopened in this case vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2021 on the basis of an information that the assessee had sold an immovable property at a total consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- (as against the stamp

OM PRAKASH,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Baramai, Ward-4(3)(4), Sadabad, Hathras Hathras (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dkbpp7713K

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The preliminary legal issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Om Prakash 4. I have heard the rival submissions

KARAN KANT JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

delay of 288 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal ground and stated that the reopening approval was given in a mechanical manner and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the same, Ld. AR ahs referred to various judicial decisions, the copies of which have