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

2. There is a delay of 231 days in filing of this appeal before us. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under:- “The Applicant most respectfully beg, pray and humbly submits as under:- Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi passed an order under

SH. JUGENDRA SINGH YADAV,AGRA vs. ACIT, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 145(3) and application of net profit rate at 8% in preceding years. 7. Because the addition of Rs.13,65,613/- confirmed by CIT(A), ought to have been deleted and/or modified considering the facts of the case. 2. The above two appeals were filed by the assessee delayed by 10 days, for which the assessee has filed condonation

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

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before this tribunal by the assessee by 22 days. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The preliminary legal issue raised

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