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/-.

delay, in terms of section 253(5) of the Act. 4.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors, reported in 12 SCC 649 has framed certain ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 8 criteria for condoning

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

4. Because the Ld. Assessing Authority has erred in applying provisions of Sec 44AD on Co-operative Society and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has simply confirmed it without application of judicial mind. 5. Because the Ld. Assessing Authority and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC have erred to ignore the fact that the appellant

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

4. Both these appeals are filed with tribunal late beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, late by 48 days as is prescribed under the statute. The assessee has filed an application before the tribunal for condonation of delay of 48 days supported by an affidavit, and prayers are made to condone the delay in filing

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

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 139(5

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 139(5

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 in view of these circumstances. The ld. AR further drew our attention to the fact that 5 A.Y. 2021-22 SBW Udyog Limited this was an appeal against the processing of the case under section 143(1). However, subsequently, the case had been selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) and in the same, the returned income had been

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The separate Appellate Order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) for all the four assessment years are all dated 18th September, 2019, which are stated to have been received by assessee on 29th October, 2019 , and hence these appeals were ought to have been filed by assessee with Income-Tax Appellate

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The separate Appellate Order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) for all the four assessment years are all dated 18th September, 2019, which are stated to have been received by assessee on 29th October, 2019 , and hence these appeals were ought to have been filed by assessee with Income-Tax Appellate

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The separate Appellate Order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) for all the four assessment years are all dated 18th September, 2019, which are stated to have been received by assessee on 29th October, 2019 , and hence these appeals were ought to have been filed by assessee with Income-Tax Appellate

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The separate Appellate Order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) for all the four assessment years are all dated 18th September, 2019, which are stated to have been received by assessee on 29th October, 2019 , and hence these appeals were ought to have been filed by assessee with Income-Tax Appellate

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

5) of the 1961 Act, beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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-

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

5) of the 1961 Act, beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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-

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

5) of the 1961 Act, beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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-

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

condonation of delay of an inordinate delay in filing these appeals. 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was having no knowledge about the impugned orders dated 04.06.2019 till he obtained the certified copies of these orders on 20.03.2020. Though, the learned

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

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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 Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

section 43(5) which was inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014, loss incurred in respect of trading in commodity derivatives was to be treated as speculation loss,therefore, there was no merit in the grounds raised by the appellant. He accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 4. Shri. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf

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

4 any concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the appellant and hence confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified, bad in law, and against the principle of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant deserves full

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.

5. THAT the appellant craves for adding or deleting any ground of appeal.” 2. At the very outset, it is observed that the appeal is delayed by 78 days. The petition has been filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. It was submitted that the assessee had not received any notice that was issued