SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

gained any benefit in late filing of appeal and I am keenly interested to pursue the appeal filed on merits. 5. Your attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention the delay should be condoned as held in the case of : a) Improvement Trust Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Long Term Capital Gain. 4. Though there is a delay in the appeal but before adverting to that aspect, we would like to take note of brief facts of the case. The assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.6,69,848/-. This income has been declared as ‘Business and Profession Income’ from

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. A perusal of the ground of appeal would reveal that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two-fold of issues, namely ; a) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re- opening of assessment, A.Y.2008-09 6 b) The ld. CIT (Appeals

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

SH. PAWAN GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1475/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5.0 It is seen from the records that assessee is a partner in a firm engaged in the dyeing and finishing of textile yarn. The return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 8,11,800/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and during the course

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is, accordingly, condoned. Ordered accordingly. 4. The ld. AR, accordingly, was directed to address the grievance of the assessee in the appeal filed. On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted at the outset that the assessee does not wish to specifically press ground No. 2 as the issue would stand addressed by the other grounds. ITA 104 /CHD/2021

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

gain anything. Their\ndemand would become final.\nTherefore, it was not an\nintentional delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

gain anything. Their\ndemand would become final.\nTherefore, it was not an\nintentional delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7.\nBoth the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

gain anything. Their\ndemand would become final.\nTherefore, it was not an\nintentional delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. This order was pronounced in open court in the presence of both the parties and hearing of the appeal was thereafter directed to be proceeded with. 6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. Brief background of the case is that the Assessing Officer had information about sale of half share of land

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 109/14-15 has erred in passing that order in contravention

SH. ASHOK KUMAR OSWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH MRS. MANJU OSWAL (LEGAL HEIR),LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is without application of mind. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of long term capital gains

SHRI ADISH OSWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is without application of mind. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of long term capital gains

MOHINDER PAL SUTHAR,SIRSA vs. ITO, W-3, SIRSA

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

Bench: Proceeding To Address The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Is Relevant To First Address The Delay Of 210

delay is condoned. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex ITA 827/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 9 and the parties were directed to argue the appeal on merits in case they were ready to do so. 5. The ld. AR inviting attention to the copy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

long term\ncapital gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

long term\ncapital gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

long term\ncapital gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There