SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 8 days in filing the appeal has been 3 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO condoned on oral request mad by the Ld. AR at the time of hearing and appeal admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Briefly the facts as per record are that the AO received STR information from Chief Manager J&K Bank Ltd., Pampore which

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

condone the delay of 183 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- In this case, on the basis of information from the DIT(I&CI), Chandigarh that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,35,99,000/- in his bank account with HDFC Bank, Fazilka, the case of the assessee was reopened vide

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

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 (1) of section

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 597& 598/Asr/2024 & Ors. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twenty-four days (24 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assesse was under treatment for Radiculopathy during

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 597& 598/Asr/2024 & Ors. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twenty-four days (24 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assesse was under treatment for Radiculopathy during

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 597& 598/Asr/2024 & Ors. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twenty-four days (24 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assesse was under treatment for Radiculopathy during

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 597& 598/Asr/2024 & Ors. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twenty-four days (24 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assesse was under treatment for Radiculopathy during

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 597& 598/Asr/2024 & Ors. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twenty-four days (24 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assesse was under treatment for Radiculopathy during

SHRI GHULAM NABI DAND ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2024. 2 I.T.A. No. 88/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 32 (thirty-two) days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that he was medically ill and has suffered a heart

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay of 169 days, despite the assessee's mental distress during the period. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal by passing order under section 250 without considering that the appeal related to the quantum, on which the penalty was imposed, is still pending before the CIT. I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 3 Assessment Year

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

delay of seven days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. The first grounds raised is general pertaining to consideration of fact of the case and applicable law shall be taken up in adjudicating the issue based grounds and hence, it does not require an independent adjudication

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Condonation of delay:- The appeal is belated by 18 days. The assessee filed 2. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been filed

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 289& 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Condonation of delay:- The appeal is belated by 18 days. The assessee filed 2. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been filed