ITAILI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,FATEHPUR vs. ITO-2(4), FATEHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the matter. We observe that while there is a considerable delay in the filing of the appeal, there is no apparent benefit to the assessee in not filing the appeal and no apparent judicial pronouncement subsequently pronounced on the grounds under dispute, that would allow us to infer that the assessee filed the appeal

RAKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,ALLAHABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-2, NFAC, Chennai erred on facts

GYAN VIKAS SAMITI,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. (B) We first take up appeal vide ITA. No.7/ALLD/2025. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesse’s appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the requirement u/s 249(4) of the Income

GYAN VIKAS SAMITI ,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. (B) We first take up appeal vide ITA. No.7/ALLD/2025. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesse’s appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the requirement u/s 249(4) of the Income

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.

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. It was further submitted that all books

JAIN SHIKSHA VIKASH SAMITI ,SULTANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemption), Gram Bharti Dhamaur, Lucknow. Sultanpur. PAN:AACAJ3906H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 17/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072262517(1) of Commissioner

UMRAO SINGH SMARAK SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condonation of delay in filing the required Form. Accordingly, the grounds raised in this appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result. Appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed second appeal with the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for haring before

BALESHWAR NATH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,,BHADOHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) In this case the assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and intimation was issued to the assessee, dated 20/09/2022 by Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC” for short) of the Income Tax department. In the aforesaid intimation dated 20/09/2022

R.D. SINGH SHIKSHAN SEWA SANSTHAN ,PRAYAGRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION) WARD ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemption Ward), 9K, George Town, Liddle Road, Allahabad Prayagraj. PAN:AABAR0074P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mayank Arora, Advocate Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These two appeals vide I.T.A. No.70 & 71/Alld/2025 have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 & 2014-15 against impugned appellate orders

R.D. SINHG SHIKSHAN SEWA SANSTHAN,PRAYAGRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WRAD ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemption Ward), 9K, George Town, Liddle Road, Allahabad Prayagraj. PAN:AABAR0074P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mayank Arora, Advocate Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These two appeals vide I.T.A. No.70 & 71/Alld/2025 have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 & 2014-15 against impugned appellate orders

UNIQUE BOOND FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemptions), Lucknow u/s 12AB((1)(b)(ii)(B) and under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). (B) These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

UNIQUE BOOND FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemptions), Lucknow u/s 12AB((1)(b)(ii)(B) and under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). (B) These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

GRAM SEWA MANDAL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION- WARD (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Exemption) Allahabad. Allahabad PAN:AAATG8571E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mamta Pandey, Advocate Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.162/Alld/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 28/02/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061689376

SAINT MARYS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), PRAYAGRAJ, PRAYAGRAJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee trust was registered under Section 12A of the I.T. Act on 28/10/1999. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 21/09/2018 declaring nil income after claiming exemption

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 12, Sammelan Marg, Allahabad- (Exemption), Allahabad 211003 Pan:Aaath6056L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Against The Orders Of The Ito(Exemption)Dated 28.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2016 Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law As The Income Of The Society Is Exempt From Tax Which Will Appear From The Assessment Record But The A.O. Ignored The Past Record. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Appellant & More So Cit(A) Has Ignored The Past Record Of The Appellant'S Society, Hence, His Entire Action Is Liable To Be Declared Illegal As Well As Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Income Of The Society Is Exempt From Income Tax From The Date Of Its Inception But The Claim Of Exemption Was Not Properly Considered By The Two Lower Authorities, Hence, Their Orders Are Bad In Law As Well As Illegal.

condoning the delay. 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that, from the gross receipts during the year of Rs.4,12,26,286/-, the assessee had only spent Rs.3,30,91,277/- on Revenue expenditure and Rs.19,303/- on fixed assets and accumulated Rs.19,31,763/- for specified

BHARTIYA SHIKSHA SAMMITTEE KASHI PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2(CPC) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee Bhartiya Shiksha Sammittee Kashi Pradesh has filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration on 21/12/2016 disclosing NIL income along with audited receipt & payment account, Income & Expenditure Account