SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

90,000 under section 69A of the LT. Act, 1961 without appreciating the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant out of the sales credited to the Audited Profit & Loss Account for the impugned year recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

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

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI DEVI SINGH ,MATHURA vs. ITO- 1(3)(4), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

90 days from 01.03.2022." In this case time has expired between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 so he can enjoy the said verdict. According to it such appeal is well in time or delay is liable to condone in the light of such order. The copy of the order is enclosed herewith. So, it is requested to you kindly accept the appeal

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI, M.P. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

90,300/- in current account no.144905500213) thereby making the total addition of Rs.1,23,84,308/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 400 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned

DEEPTI GUPTA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), GWALIOR

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

90,000/- on account of cash deposits in the facts and circumstances of\nthe instant case.\n5. On perusal of the order of the Id JCIT (A), we find that the Id JCIT (A)\nhad decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits\ngiving its independent finding. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay,\nwe deem