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

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

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

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

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the matter. We observe that while there is a considerable delay in the filing of the appeal, there is no apparent benefit to the assessee in not filing the appeal and no apparent judicial pronouncement subsequently pronounced on the grounds under dispute, that would allow us to infer that the assessee filed the appeal

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal(s) late by assessee by 48 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act and admit both these appeals for ay: Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, to be now adjudicated on merits. We order accordingly. ITA No. 54/Alld/2020- Assessment Year

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

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

delay of 2 days in filing 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji the appeal is condoned and the case is taken up for hearing on merits. Ld. AR further arguing the case, pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) had wrongly concluded that the assessee had brought forward losses from trading in, ‘Commodity derivatives’ as per (Clause E) of section

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

section 271(1)(c) on 05.03.2024 imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,04,000/- whereas a request letter was submitted before the Ld. AO to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by the Hon’ble ITAT Circuit Bench Varanasi but without considering the request of the appellant the LAO has imposed the penalty which

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

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has not attended the proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and consequently both the orders passed under section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has not attended the proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and consequently both the orders passed under section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has not attended the proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and consequently both the orders passed under section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has not attended the proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and consequently both the orders passed under section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has not attended the proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and consequently both the orders passed under section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty

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.

delay, if any, should be 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

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 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal. I.T.A. No.28/Alld/2025 Assessment

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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.

condoning the delay. 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that, from the gross receipts during the year of Rs.4,12,26,286/-, the assessee had only spent Rs.3,30,91,277/- on Revenue expenditure and Rs.19,303/- on fixed assets and accumulated Rs.19,31,763/- for specified