SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax- payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the issue

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

148 of the 1961 Act. These facts/issues are not in dispute as there is no legal dispute raised by assessee challenging reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue as it is not brought to our notice that Cross Appeal/Cross Objections(CO) are filed by assessee before the tribunal challenging legality and validity of reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

148 of the 1961 Act. These facts/issues are not in dispute as there is no legal dispute raised by assessee challenging reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue as it is not brought to our notice that Cross Appeal/Cross Objections(CO) are filed by assessee before the tribunal challenging legality and validity of reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue

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.

condoned. 10. The next issue that has been raised bythe ld. AR is that subsequent to the order under section 143(1), the case was taken up for scrutiny under section 143(3) and the ld. AO in those proceedings has accepted the returned income of the assessee. Thereby, the ld. AO has accepted the contention of the assessee that

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

148 to 153, assess or 14 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 re-assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings

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

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

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

148. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on three occasions. Upon the failure to receive any compliance, a show cause notice under section 144 was issued to the assessee and upon failure to receive compliance to the same, orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Income A.Ys

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

148. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on three occasions. Upon the failure to receive any compliance, a show cause notice under section 144 was issued to the assessee and upon failure to receive compliance to the same, orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Income A.Ys

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

148. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on three occasions. Upon the failure to receive any compliance, a show cause notice under section 144 was issued to the assessee and upon failure to receive compliance to the same, orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Income A.Ys

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO (NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

148. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on three occasions. Upon the failure to receive any compliance, a show cause notice under section 144 was issued to the assessee and upon failure to receive compliance to the same, orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Income A.Ys

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

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can 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

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

1. BECAUSE the proceedings under section 147 of the Act have neither been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with law, hence the entire proceedings are void- ab-initio and the order dated 29.03.2019 passed under section 144 of the Act alongwith the appellate order dated 22.07.2024 passed against the appellant deserves to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE the jurisdictional

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

MOHAMMAD GHUFRAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO - 2(5), KAUSHAMBI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

148 of the Act nor filed any return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO), ITA No.126/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 6 thereafter, issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to explain the source of investment made in purchase of the immovable property for a consideration of Rs.26,60,000/- along with documentary evidences

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

148 on 31st March, 2016 by registered post. There was no compliance to the said notice. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) as well as notice under section 144 of Income Tax Act but those notices were also remained un-complied with. The AO, accordingly, proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order under section 144 by assessing