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

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/-.

1. That the authority below has added Rs.2,87,478/- without any basis, which is exempted income. 2. That the order passed is bad in law and on facts. 2.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 824 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that

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

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

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

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

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

1)(i) was issued by ld. JCIT Range, Sultanpur who was not jurisdictional assessing officer; (iii) Considering the above fact, initiation of proceeding was void ab initio and thus impugned assessment order ITA No.68/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 9 dated 31.10.2019 was not tenable and deserves to be quashed. (2) Above mentioned ground is purely a legal ground and same

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

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

IRFAN AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO RANGE 1(2),, ALLAHABAD

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

b) and (c) of 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

VISHNU KUMAR KESARWANI ,PRAYAGRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1) of Addl/JCIT of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 3 (B) In this case assessment order dated 26/12/2018 was passed under section 147/144 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income

HASAN JAVED,MEERANPUR vs. ITO, AMBEDKARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has 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

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has 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

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

1) of Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2021-22 2 (B) This appeal has 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

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

1. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal in limine by holding that there is delay of 74 days in filing of appeal filed on 14.06.2016 and appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay and there is mismatch in particular of challan of appeal filing

ALOK RAI,ALLAHBAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.57,10,200/-/- against the returned income of Rs.12,29,630/-. In the aforesaid assessment order addition of Rs.35,71,428/- was made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and another addition of Rs.9,09,142/- was made towards income from other sources