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

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

delay of 14 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. 3.1 The assessee has also preferred an additional ground as under:- A.Y. 2014-15 M/s N. Chaurasia Associates “5. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the revised return is a valid return within the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

delay of 14 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. 3.1 The assessee has also preferred an additional ground as under:- A.Y. 2014-15 M/s N. Chaurasia Associates “5. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the revised return is a valid return within the provisions of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. We first of all advert to the assessee’s and Revenue’s quantum cross appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 1071 & 1151/Del/2014 for former assessment year 2005- 06 and ITA No. 2455 & 3329/Del/2014 for latter assessee year

MEENU, GOVINDPUR, ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC (NFAC, DELHI), DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, 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 09.02.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), dated 26.03.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,12,650/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 8 deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,698/- and sustaining

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

143(3) of the Act 61, dated 27/12/2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the filing of this appeal is belated by 32 days. An affidavit has been filed explaining the delay in filing of this appeal where the I.T.A. No.04/Alld/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee submitted that the order of the first

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

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (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 Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

delay is condoned and the grounds are admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that despite the fact of scrutiny assessment having been done in the case of the assessee under section 143

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") by learned Assessing ITA No.54 and 55/ALLD/2020 Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO”) . We have heard both the parties through video conferencing mode through virtual court. 2. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in its appeal

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

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale grain dealer and rice manufacturer and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs.15,39,490/- as against

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

143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the addition to the income to the tune of Rs. 6,31,788/- made by AO on account of delayed remission of employee's contribution towards EPF to the credit of employee with relevant fund beyond the time prescribed under relevant

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

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

3. That in any view of the matter it is settled law that once registration is granted u/s 12A of the Act benefit of section 11 to 13 should have been allowed which was not done hence the order of rejection of rectification passed vide order under u/s 154 dated 10/08/20 is not correct. 4. That in any view

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for short, dated 22/03/2022 was passed by CPC, Bangaluru raising a demand of Rs.3,14,270/- vide demand reference No.2021202137053054511T. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 03/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condonation of delay and there is mismatch in particular of challan of appeal filing fee as furnished in Form No. 35 and copy of challan furnished. I.T.A. No.23/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2008-09 2 2. BECAUSE the NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant has filed appeal manually in Form No. 35 on 26.04.2016 vide Acknowledgement No. Book

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)

3. The ld. Sr. DR submitted at the outset submitted that the assessee filed an appeal with ld. CIT(A) with delay of around 4 years , i.e. 1473 days, beyond the time prescribed under the provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not show sufficient cause before