GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

THE TALWANDI RAI MULTIPURPOSE AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,TALWANDI RAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JAGRAON, JAGRAON

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

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delay in filing appeal as observed by I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC). 3) That the appellant is a rural small co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities

THE TALWANDI RAI MULTIPURPOSE AGRICULTURE COPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,VPO. TALWANDI RAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JAGRAON, JAGRAON

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

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delay in filing appeal as observed by I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC). 3) That the appellant is a rural small co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities

HEMANT BEHL,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case. Against The Said Order Of The Ld Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

delay in filing of the appeal which may be condoned and appeal be heard on merit. 6. It was further submitted that due to illness of his old parents, the assessee came to India in the year 2016 and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the SBI Account on 05/11/2016, thereafter the demonetization

THE MULLANA AGRICULTURE COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,AMBALA CITY vs. ITO, WARD-5, AMBALA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and the appeal is taken to be decided on merits. 6. The Society is an Agriculture Co Operative Society working for its members only. The case was selected for scrutiny u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2017- 18. The Assessing Officer found that assessee society accepted an aggregate amount of Rs.1

NAVEET SHARMA,VILL.NAGABAG P.O.BANDROL vs. ITO WARD KULLU, KULLU

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 31.03.2018 for assessment year the year under consideration, declaring a total taxable income of Rs.3,84,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for cash deposited during the demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

delay in filing the Cross Objections is hereby condoned. Now, the case is heard on merits. 21. Ground Nos. 1 & 2: During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee argued vehemently against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in accepting the rejection of the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has discussed

SHER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGRUR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay. 5. The brief facts are that the assessee, an individual engaged in agricultural activities and sale of milk, deposited a sum of ₹14,75,600/- in various bank accounts during the financial year 2016–17, including the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer, noting non-compliance with statutory notices, framed the assessment ex-parte

DILBAG SINGH,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAITHAL

The appeal stand partly allowed accordingly

Bench: Tribunal.

delay is condoned. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.14.19 Lacs during demonetization

FASHION ZONE,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, WARD III(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the present appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following concise/amended grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer and, thereby, confirming the addition

MOHAMMED MUNIM PROP. M.N. ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. PR. C.I.T., LUDHIANA

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and proceed for disposal of the appeal on merits. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and made out a case of one of the possible views by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT-DR also advanced arguments and submitted that Ld. AO failed to make requisite enquiries. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records

STAR PLY LAM LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 692/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Star Ply Lam Limited Dcit/Acit Circle 1(1) बनाम/ Sco 34, Sector 26 Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh-160019 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3258-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17-10- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.33.26 Lacs During Demonetization Period. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 132 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By Affidavit Of Assessee’S Chartered Accountant Shri Manish Goel. It Has Been Stated

demonetization period. The registry has noted delay of 132 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought

SH. RAJ KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for examining cash deposits during the course of demonetization

AJAY KUMAR AND SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. ITO-1(5), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.”

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. On merits, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that the return declaring Nil Income was filed and the case was selected in CASS for verification of cash deposits during demonetization

SANT KIRPAL VIDYAK MISSION,LUDHIANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The\nCommissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form\nno.10B shall satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable\ncause from filing such application within the stipulated time. Further, all\nsuch applications shall be disposed off by 30.09.2019.\n12.10 The learned AR submitted that the delay

KULVINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee in this appeal has contested the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.14,79,970/- by treating the cash amount deposited during demonetization