Search: condonation of delay | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

29 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,337 Kolkata847 Chennai761 Delhi610 Pune569 Bangalore498 Ahmedabad411 Patna338 Jaipur316 Amritsar228 Surat222 Raipur221 Indore194 Hyderabad185 Rajkot177 Nagpur176 Panaji147 Chandigarh120 Cochin106 Karnataka103 Lucknow99 Visakhapatnam88 Guwahati84 Agra70 Calcutta41 Jabalpur39 Cuttack37 Allahabad29 Jodhpur20 Varanasi16 Dehradun14 Ranchi12 SC4 Himachal Pradesh1 Andhra Pradesh1 Telangana1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25044 Section 14415 Addition to Income14 Condonation of Delay11 Section 271(1)(c)10 Natural Justice10 Section 143(1)9 Section 69A9 Section 36(1)(va)

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 270Section 44A

condonation of delay was filed by the Secretary of the Samiti, Sh. Pramod Singh. It was submitted that the ex parte appellate order under section 250

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

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9

Limitation/Time-bar8

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/ALLD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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.

For Appellant: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

250, the assessee invited the attention of the ld. Addl 3 A.Y. 2021-22 SBW Udyog Limited CIT/JCIT(A) to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020 dated 8.03.2021, whereby due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, extension of limitation under the various laws

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

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

ITA 98/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

250 of the Act 61, which has emanated from the order of the ITO / Ward 3(2), Mirzapur, passed u/s 144 of the Act 61, dated 23/12/2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 260 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay , along with

NAWAB ALI,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. ITO-3, , AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.15/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Nawab Ali Fatehpura बिधम/ Ito-3 Pakaddi Ambedkar Nagar. Vs. Shahzadpur, Amkbedkar Nagar, U.P.-224122. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbnpa4922L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.06.2022 For Ay. 2017-18. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. At The Outset, It Is Noted That Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay 171 Days For Filing Of Appeal Before This Tribunal. In This Regard, It Is Noted That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Dated 15.06.2022 & The Assessee Has Filed The Same On 15.02.2023. According To The Assessee, The Impugned Order Got Misplaced In The File & The Assessee Only Realized The Same On 01.02.2023. & Thereafter, Immediately Filed The Appeal Before This Tribunal. In Order To Support The Aforesaid Explanation, Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit. Taking Note Of The Contents Of The Affidavit & Taking Note That There Was No Deliberate Intention On He Part Of Assessee In Not Filing The Appeal, I Am Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR)

Section 250Section 250(6)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Nawab Ali Fatehpura Pakaddi 3. It is noted from perusal of ground no. 2 that the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. In this regard, the assessee claims that since the impugned action

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

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.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

250 of the act on ITBA Portal and no physical notice was issued to appellant on address mentioned in filed ITR and filed appeal and has disallowed appeal without considering this fact that appellant lives at Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) and is unknown about information technology. 2. THAT the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law & facts

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

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

250 of the Act is liable to be deleted. 5. BECAUSE the deposits in bank account having been duly disclosed by the appellant in his return filed in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the addition of Rs.14,62,774/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained investment by invoking section

ACHCHHE LAL YADAV (DECEASED) L/H AMAR SINGH YADAV,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1)ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 93/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has I.T.A. No.93/Alld/2025 2 requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 80/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.02.2024 wherein the ld. Addl CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Allahabad on 12.12.2019 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That in any view of the matter the assessment

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

ITA 41/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. NitaFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

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

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

ITA 29/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. NitaFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

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

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

ITA 124/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are detailed and 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

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

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act on 22.09.2022, wherein the ld. CIT(A), upon restoration of the appeals against assessments orders under section 144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee

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

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

ITA 52/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act on 22.09.2022, wherein the ld. CIT(A), upon restoration of the appeals against assessments orders under section 144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee

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

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

ITA 54/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act on 22.09.2022, wherein the ld. CIT(A), upon restoration of the appeals against assessments orders under section 144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee

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

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 148/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay.” 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter.” A.Ys

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

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 138/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay.” 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter.” A.Ys

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

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 139/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay.” 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter.” A.Ys

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

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 147/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay.” 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter.” A.Ys

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

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

ITA 102/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 250

250 of the Act 61, which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ambedkar Nagar, passed u/s 144 of the Act 61, dated 30/03/2015. 2. Condonation of delay: I.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 692 days. That assessee has filed an application for condonation

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

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 and in law as the income of the society