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/-.

7 of 8 violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature". 4.4 It is the trite law that the burden is on the party claiming condonation of delay to place before the appellate authority/Court, in clear and explicit terms, all the facts on which the party relies, so that the appellate authority/Court

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

Section 44AD applies only to resident assessee who is an individual, Hindu Undivided Family and partnership firm but not Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) firm. Thus, both Ld. Assessing Authority and Ld. Appellate Authority have made reckless assessment and erroneous confirmation of the same without considering the fact that the appellant is having status of Co-operative Society. 7. Because

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

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

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

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

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

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

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

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

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

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

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

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

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

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

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 period of limitation from

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

section 11 is not allowable. Accordingly, since the requisite conditions were not satisfied, order u/s 154 was correctly passed disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 11(1)(a). 7. Condonation of delay

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 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for short, dated 22/03/2022 was passed by CPC, Bangaluru raising a demand of Rs.3,14,270/- vide demand reference No.2021202137053054511T. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 03/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned

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

section 69 of the Act is wholly erroneous. 7. BECAUSE the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) in Form 35 had specifically opted out of receipt of notices/communication from his office through email but despite that no hard/physical copy of any notice intimating fixation of appeal was ever served upon the appellant, accordingly

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

7 of 9 4.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 414 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, which were received by the Registry of this Bench

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That in view of the matter assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18/12/18 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on income Rs. 15,98,850/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That

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

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- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

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

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- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

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

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- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

7. That the assessee craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay