M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX FFICER WARD- 3 (3), JALANDHAR

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section 36

M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section 36

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

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that there has been a delay in 967 days in filing both the appeals in ITA Nos. 39 Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT & 40/Asr/2019, as these appeals are filed on 21.01.2019 against the order even dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda

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

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that there has been a delay in 967 days in filing both the appeals in ITA Nos. 39 Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT & 40/Asr/2019, as these appeals are filed on 21.01.2019 against the order even dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being\nthrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the\nhighest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals. Therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 1 day and 11 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 122/ASR/2022 and 37&38/ASR/2022 respectively, were being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid short delay

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals. Therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 1 day and 11 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 122/ASR/2022 and 37&38/ASR/2022 respectively, were being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid short delay

SMT. GURINDER KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals. Therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 1 day and 11 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 122/ASR/2022 and 37&38/ASR/2022 respectively, were being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid short delay

M/S KOSMO VEHICELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals. Therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 1 day and 11 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 122/ASR/2022 and 37&38/ASR/2022 respectively, were being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid short delay

SOFTOBIZ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals and therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 113 days and 136 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 86/ASR/2022 and 149/ASR/2022 respectively, being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing

SHRI PARMINDER SINGH PROP PHAGWARA GAS SERVICE ,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals and therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 113 days and 136 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 86/ASR/2022 and 149/ASR/2022 respectively, being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing

SHRI ADARSH TICKOO,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals and therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 113 days and 136 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 86/ASR/2022 and 149/ASR/2022 respectively, being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing

SATYAM CEMENTS,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals and therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 113 days and 136 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 86/ASR/2022 and 149/ASR/2022 respectively, being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing

SAVITRI WOOD PRODUCTS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2 appeals and therefore, these appeals are adjudicated by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. There has been delay of 113 days and 136 days in filing appeal in ITA Nos. 86/ASR/2022 and 149/ASR/2022 respectively, being explained as circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLAGE OF EDUCATION ( UNIT OF ) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , JAMMU

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

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

delay for 3080 days is condoned. I.T.A. No. 190/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable in law. 2. That the worthy