SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

section 10(10B) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal again the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act and submitted before the Ld. First Appellate Authority that the assessee was an illiterate person and was not aware of the fact that the amount received under VRS was exempt. This appeal before the Ld. NFAC was delayed

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

section 10(10B) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal again the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act and submitted before the Ld. First Appellate Authority that the assessee was an illiterate person and was not aware of the fact that the amount received under VRS was exempt. This appeal before the Ld. NFAC was delayed

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

10B) was not claimed in the return f iled and appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) NFAC , along with other f our persons retired under VRS/VSS f rom HMT L td, Pinjore. 11. That appeal preferred is late as per the f acts mentioned in my aff idavit dated 02/10/2021. Kindly condone the delay in f iling the appeal late

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

10B,because the appellant was under a bona fide belief that the Hon'ble CIT/ADDL/JCIT(Appeals) under his co-terminus powers, could condone the delay. But the delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble CIT/ADDL/JCIT(Appeals. 3.4. That now, the appellant has on 09. 05.2024 ,filed request before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income- Tax ( Exemptions ) Chandigarh for condonation

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act and submitted before the Ld. First Appellate Authority that the assessee was entitled to exemption of the compensation u/s 10(10B) of the Act. The ld. AO gathered the requisite information in respect of the nature of compensation received by the assessee from M/s HMT Ltd. who clarified that the assessee opted for VRS under

SHRI GURU NANAK NAM LEWA SEWAK JATHA,,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10B and in such a situation, where the AO didn’t condone the delay presuminingly (though nothing is stated in this regard specifically dismissing the application) for the reason that it doesn’t satisfy the criteria as laid down in clause 4(i) and reading sub-section (1

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

condoning the delay. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was un- justified in not accepting the claim of accumulated profits amounting to Rs. 15,70,071/- made u/s 11(2) of the Act on the alleged ground that the Form 10 filed by the Appellant Trust did not specify the explicit purpose

SHRI SAHIB DAYAL JI SULAHKUL SATSANG TRUST,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBALA

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the Form 10B and accordingly, the action of the AO/CPC under section 143(1) was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has referred to the CBDT Circular No. 19/2022 dt. 30/09/2022 wherein the due date for filing of the Audit Report for A.Y. 2022-23 has been extended upto 07/10/2022. Further, he has referred

ANJU BALA L/H OM PARKASH,PINJORE vs. ITO- WARD-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 249/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anju Bala बनाम The Ito, Legal Heir Of Shri Om Parkash Ward-3, C/O Dhiman Bansal & Panchkula Associates, 68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore 134102 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aavpp0395C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Dr. Danish Abdullah, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order

delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) should have been condoned keeping in view the element of natural justice to the Assessee. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. Brief facts of the case, as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) Bengaluru, are as under

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 602/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Red Cross Society बनाम The DCIT(Exemptions) Circle-1, Chandigarh Red Cross Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda-151001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATI4900K अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

10B Reports. 6. During proceedings before us, It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the said society is administered by the ‘District Magistrate’. The activities of the Trust/Society include providing aid and medicines to the poor, the handicapped and to Widows. It also runs an educational institution under the name and style of M/s Mahant Gurbanta

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

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

1) dated 08.07.2019, the\nassessee was asked to explain as to why exemption claimed u/s 11 should not be\ndenied as one of the mandatory conditions for claiming exemption u/s 11 and 12\nspecified in section 12A had not been fulfilled. In response, vide letter dated\n31.07.2019, the assessee stated that original return was filed on 30.03.2017 and\ncertain defects

MAHAPRABHU RAM MULKH HI-TECH EDUCATION SOCIETY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. DCIT (E)(C-2) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made by virtue of denial of

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

section. 12A and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 It was submitted that the assessee had since moved an application u/s 119(2) for condonation of delay for the delayed filing of the audit report before ld CIT(E) vide its application dt. 11.12.2023. The said prayer has now been accepted vide order

CEE ENN ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED BAREWAL SUKHMANI ENCLAVE LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA, INCOME TAX OFFICER LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHINA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Assessment Order dated 21/05/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order of the Learned Commissioner

SHAPING CAREERS EDUCATION SOCIETY,PANCHKULA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD,, AMBALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Denying The Exemption By The Cpc.

delay was refused on the ground that filing Form 10B instead of Form 10BB does not establish any genuine hardship, particularly where repeated defaults were committed by the assessee. According to the DR, the CPC had no discretion to condone such lapse while processing returns under section 143(1

MOHALI EDUCATION SOCIETY, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed as being not maintainable

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.511/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Mohali Education Society Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Vs. Opp. H.No.652, Phase-X Chandigarh Mohali – 160062 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6973-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application (Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10B) As Filed By The Assessee U/S 119(2)(B) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2025 As Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Cit-Dr, At The Outset, Pleaded That This Order Is Not An Appealable Order Before Tribunal In Terms

1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application (seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) as filed by the assessee u/s 119(2)(b) for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 vide impugned order dated 21-03-2025 as passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, the assessee is in further appeal before