VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned.\n5. Further reliance is being placed on the judgement of ITAT, Amritsar bench in the case of M.K. Hotels & Resorts\nLtd. Distt. Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar [PAN: AABCM0913G] v/s ACIT Circle-l, Amritsar in which it\nhas been stated as under: -\n4. The said view was further affirmed

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice, the delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section

GURPREET SINGH KHURANA,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

justice. The assessee humbly prays that the delay in making the balance payment of the appeal fee may kindly be condoned, and the appeal may be treated as validly filed. 11. Also, Form No.36 is being filed afresh, since in the Form-36 earlier filed, place and date were not correctly filled, which is deeply regretted.” 3. There

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

condonation of delay in filing appeal observing that it appears to be only due to lax approach and nothing but gross negligence and inaction without appreciating the fact that assessee is uneducated agriculturists living in a small village of backward area of Mansa District and unaware of the technicalities for e-verification for appeal is against humanity and natural justice

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted. 3. Since, in these four appeals the same assessee has challenged the issue of natural justice

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted. 3. Since, in these four appeals the same assessee has challenged the issue of natural justice

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted. 3. Since, in these four appeals the same assessee has challenged the issue of natural justice

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted. 3. Since, in these four appeals the same assessee has challenged the issue of natural justice

M/S. NOBAL WELFARE SOCITY ,FAZILKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” 2.1. Considering the bona-fide reason for delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 266 days is condoned, and appeals admitted on merits. Nobel Welfare Society v. CIT 3. The CIT (Exemption) while rejecting the application

M/S. NOBAL WELFARE SOCIETY,FAZILKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” 2.1. Considering the bona-fide reason for delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 266 days is condoned, and appeals admitted on merits. Nobel Welfare Society v. CIT 3. The CIT (Exemption) while rejecting the application

LAKSHYA FOUNDATION ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice and equity. 8. The appellant request for the condonation of 104 days is duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions

HINDUSTAN WELFARE BLOOD DONOR CLUB ,PHAGWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice and equity. 8. The appellant request for the condonation of 104 days is duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions

LAKSHAYA FOUNDATION ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice and equity. 8. The appellant request for the condonation of 104 days is duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions

HINDUSTAN WELFARE BLOOD DONOR CLUB ,PHAGWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice and equity. 8. The appellant request for the condonation of 104 days is duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions

SHEERAZ MUSTAFA CHOPAN,SHOPIAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD, ANANTNAG

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 216/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

natural justice and hence these two appeal were heard together after hearing the Ld. DR, although none attended for these assesses. Further, we had rejected the adjournment application filed by one of these assessees being found devoid of merits in the case of appeal number in ITA No. 216/Asr/2025. 3. We condone the delay

ABDUL REHMAN BHAT,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1 SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 216/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

natural justice and hence these two appeal were heard together after hearing the Ld. DR, although none attended for these assesses. Further, we had rejected the adjournment application filed by one of these assessees being found devoid of merits in the case of appeal number in ITA No. 216/Asr/2025. 3. We condone the delay

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

AIJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH FIRDOUS ABAD BATMULOO SRINAGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SRINAGAR INCOME TAX OFFICE DHARARTH TRUST BUILDING SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.667/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aijaz Ahmad Sheikh, Ito, Firdous Abad Batmuloo, V Ward-1, Srinagar 190001 S Srinagar Jammu & Kashmir "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bcbps9630N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

natural justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Brief facts emerging from records