TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

business requirements, these appeals were filed late with tribunal, beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. When technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the Courts will lean in favour of substantial justice , unless malice is at writ large or there are latches on the part of the litigant. In case, the delay in filing

HUSHN JAHAN,AMETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AMETHI, AMETHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

business income and the balance deposits made during demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A; (11) Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the addition under section 69A ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 69A cannot be applied where no books of accounts were maintained; (12) order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural

IRFAN AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO RANGE 1(2),, ALLAHABAD

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

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That in any view of the matter assessment made u/s 143 (3)/147 by order dated 25.03.2015 on income of Rs.19,16,470/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter proceeding

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

business, because it was not income from short term capital gain. Therefore, the question of set off against the brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 did not arise. The ld. AO further found that there was a mismatch in the gains of derivative trading in the case of M/s Niramal Bang Securities Ltd., where short term capital loss

RAVINDRA NATH PATEL ,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GORKHPUR, GORKHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. The appellant craves the right to add/modify/alter any others grounds of appeals during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 1.1 The appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

income, samples of transportation order, receipts of loading/unloading, copy of previous returns filed or identity of business providers in transportation and commission. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), after recounting history of non-compliance by the assessee over time, felt it appropriate to dismiss the appeal of the assessee against the quantum. In the appeal against the penalty, he listed

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

income, samples of transportation order, receipts of loading/unloading, copy of previous returns filed or identity of business providers in transportation and commission. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), after recounting history of non-compliance by the assessee over time, felt it appropriate to dismiss the appeal of the assessee against the quantum. In the appeal against the penalty, he listed

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

income, samples of transportation order, receipts of loading/unloading, copy of previous returns filed or identity of business providers in transportation and commission. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), after recounting history of non-compliance by the assessee over time, felt it appropriate to dismiss the appeal of the assessee against the quantum. In the appeal against the penalty, he listed

RAHUL SHARMA,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.98/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the notices

NARENDRA SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT (A), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2009-10 Narendra Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Kalyanpur, Allahabad, U.P. Ward-1(3), Allahabad Pan:Buvps2136P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, on merits, the CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the source of the deposits of the money in the bank account of the assessee being a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- was claimed as belongs to his brother Shri. Shyamji Singh, who wanted to purchase the land at Shankargarh

ABDULLAH KHAN,BHADOHI vs. CIT (A), VARANASI

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoita Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 Ays: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Abdullah Khan, Takiya Kallan Shah, Main Road, Tax (Appeals), Varanasi District-Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), U.P. Pan-Akypk9399L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arif Iqbal, Advocate Department By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Both Dated 04.06.2019 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12, Respectively. 2. The Impugned Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Passed On 04.06.2019, Whereas These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee On 01.07.2022, Therefore, The Delay Of More Than Two Years Is Required To Be Explained. The Assessee Has Filed The Applications For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Receive The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Till 20.03.2020 When The Assessee Obtained The Certified Copies Of The Above Orders. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Further Submitted That The Counsel Who Was Appearing For The Assessee Also Did Not Communicate About The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Therefore, The Assessee Was Having No Knowledge About The Impugned Orders. He Has Further Submitted That When The Orders Were Received By The Assessee, It Was Covid-19

condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal upto 30.06.2022 is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the appeals filed on 01.07.2022 are admitted as valid appeals for adjudication on merits

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. It was also submitted that the assessee had not filed a return of income during the year consideration, as his income below taxable limits. It was submitted that the amount of Rs.52,40,493/- which had been deposited in the two bank accounts, were amounts received from cash sales and sundry debtors

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction

ROHIT,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Income Tax portal. As such, he humbly prayed that the delay I.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 was not intentional and there was no willful neglect on his part and he has not gained anything by filing this appeal belatedly. He prayed that the delay may please be condoned and the appeal may be admitted to be heard

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

business of Hotels, Marketing & Lubricants etc., filed a return of income disclosing an income of Rs.7,16,79,080/- on 22.01.2022. Thereafter, the return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru on 17.10.2022, wherein the total income was worked out at Rs.7,59, 83,430/-. A disallowance was made for a sum of Rs.43,04,355/-, as being hit by section

JAI MAA DURGA TRADERS,BALLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Jai Maa Durga Traders, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ballia (Appeals), Income Tax Department Pan:Aagfj8468H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.05.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Detailed & Run Into 16 Pages. Accordingly, For Reasons Of Brevity, The Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Being Reproduced In The Order But The Essence Of The Grounds Are That The Unilateral Order In Question Was Excessive, Illegal & Without Justice & That The Complete Details Of Inward Supplies & Outward Supplies Received By The Assessee In The Relevant Year Had Been Submitted, The Accounts Had Been Audited & Audit Report Uploaded On The Portal. The Firm Had Erroneously Been Allotted A Second Pan In The F.Y. 2011-12 On Application For Duplicate Pan & This Second Pan Had Been Furnished To The Bank While The Itr & Tax Audit Report Had Been Submitted On The Existing Pan. As A Result Of This, An Impression Had Been Created That There Were Unexplained Deposits In The Bank Account But The Fact Is That All The Deposits Were 1 Jai Maa Durga Traders A.Y. 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in wholesale trading of sugar, it purchases sugar bags in the bulk quantity from sugar mills and sells to it to retailers in the city of Ballia. It filed

RAM KUMAR MAURYA,BHADOHI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BHADOHI, BHADOHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

income of Rs.1,76,534/-u/s 69 of the Act on the overall turnover of Rs.14,18,700/- from business of plying of vehicles on rent for small distance having been left out from consideration by the ld. Assessing Officer, entire addition of Rs.14,62,770/- made by him while passing the ex-parte assessment order dated 24.12.2019 as also

CHHEDI LAL GUPTA,PRATAPGARH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATAPGARH

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

business of the appellant and therefore separate addition under section 69A of Rs.10,63,000/- is liable to be deleted.” 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application dated 04/08/2025, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing