JIYAUDDIN KHAN,MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ, MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

2. The appeal is barred by limitation by 117 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Therefore, the delay

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

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

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

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

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

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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

2) of the Income Tax Rules, the deduction claimed under section 11 is not allowable. Accordingly, since the requisite conditions were not satisfied, order u/s 154 was correctly passed disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 11(1)(a). 7. Condonation of delay

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; I.T.A. No.182/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

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

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

11. Because the Ld. Assessing Authority has erred in believing in wrong information and has arbitrarily assessed income in haste merely on conjectures and surmises. 12. Because the initiation of penalty U/s 270 A & 272A (1) (d) is wrong and illegal. 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Itaili Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 13. Because the order passed

KANODIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Kanodia Investments Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 1, Lukerganj, Allahabad, U.P. V. Centralized Processing Centre Bengaluru Pan: Aabck0604Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249(2)(b) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not show sufficient cause before ld. CIT(A) for filing its appeal late beyond the time provided under the 1961 Act , and thus, the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay. Thus, prayers were made by ld. Sr. DR to dismiss this

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

delay may please be condoned and the appeal may be admitted to be heard on merits. 2.4 Considering the condonation application, and the contents of the affidavit we find that the assessee has stated sufficient cause for filing the appeal belated by 692 days and we find that in absence of any willful or intentional neglect on the part

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

11 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad 1961 Act , vide assessment order dated 21.12.2010, assessing total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 49,30,510/- , as against returned income of Rs. 43,03,860/-. 9.3 The ground number

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That in view of the matter assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18/12/18 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on income Rs. 15,98,850/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That

MAA SHARDA COLD STORAGE,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.04/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay of 32 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: 1. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE

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

2) Above mentioned ground is purely a legal ground and same is being raised before Hon'ble bench in view of the ration laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383; (3) the Authorities below have erred in law and on facts in passing

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

2 appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the 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

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.

11,20,000/- into bank accounts during demonetization period and only notice U/s 142(1) was issued to appellant. Further, the A.O. has completed assessment without issuing notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. 4. THAT the learned A.O. has erred in law & a fact in making addition of Rs. 25, 90,414/- without considering this fact that appellant