SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

200 in reply dated 22.12.2016. However, the ld. ITO failed to recollect this fact while framing the order. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has remained Silent (Not Commented upon at all) on this Ground of Appeal. 3. The assessee had mailed in reply dated 28.12.2016 along with copy of ledger account of withdrawals of the assessee in which an amount

SHRI AJAY BALI ,SAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

delay of 40 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Assessment Order dated 18/12/2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, WardSamba u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi thereby confirming the order

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

S.S. JAIN SABHA GOLF LINK, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. In course of hearing, there has not been any appearance by the assessee or his ld. counsel on repeated calls neither physically nor in virtual mode. However, considering the grounds of appeal and the issues involved, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing

SHRI SAROOP HARI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

3. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 358 days. The petition for condonation of delay is filed and the delay is duly explained. The ld. AR mentioned that delay for 220 days was due to the assessee’s illness and was suffering in Caner, relevant medical papers are duly filed before bench. For rest

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condonation of delay in filing the belated appeal. 4. That the worthy CIT(A) should have allowed an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the belated appeal. The Learned Chandigarh Bench has taken this view that the CIT(A) must allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in filing the belated appeal. This view