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)

Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Commissioner (Appeals) Form of appeal and limitation - Whether though a party is required to explain each day's delay and to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause in filing appeal in time, yet power to condone delay has to be exercised in a pragmatic manner to advance substantial justice Held

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)

Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Commissioner (Appeals) Form of appeal and limitation - Whether though a party is required to explain each day's delay and to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause in filing appeal in time, yet power to condone delay has to be exercised in a pragmatic manner to advance substantial justice Held

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

144 of the Income Tax Act whereas ITA No.729/CHD/2024 ITA No.728&729/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

144 of the Income Tax Act whereas ITA No.729/CHD/2024 ITA No.728&729/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First we take quantum appeal. 3. The ld. Counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

condone the alleged delay and proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both the assessment years. 7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 7 assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a single issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

condone the alleged delay\nand proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both\nthe assessment years.\n7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each\n assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a\nsingle issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds are\nperipheral arguments qua the central point. The common\nissue

SH. JATINDER KAURA (DECEASED) THROUGH L/H SMT. DIMPLE KAURA,RAIKOT, LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

144 on 08.12.2019. Since the Legal Heir was not aware about the proceedings, hence, she could not file the appeal. Ultimately appeal was filed on 04.05.2024 after a delay of 1608 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay pointing out therein that this notice was issued in the name of a deceased person and assessment

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

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

144 r.w.s. 147 and assessed the income after making addition of Rs. 22,97,000/-. That the Assessee being an agriculturist, is not very familiar with income tax portal and hence he was not even aware of the notices under section 250 as the old counsel of the Assessee also did not inform him about the notices. Further, the notices

RAJ KUMAR,MANALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KULLU

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

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056199571(1) Dt. 18/09/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. Factual Matrix 2. The Ld. Ao Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1022831422(1) Dt. 21/12/2019 Has Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 35,38,840/- Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Aforesaid Assessment Order Dt. 2112/2019 Had Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who By “Impugned Order” Has Dismissed The Same Exparte. 4. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The “Impugned Order” Has Preferred Present Second Appeal Before Us & In Form No. 36 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condoning the delay we notice that “Impugned order” is exparte as no opportunity in effective manner is noticed by us to have been given to the assesse even at the original stage as Ld.AO’s order is under section 144

MS. GEETA BHATIA, KHANNA,KHANNA vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, KHANNA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 895/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Geeta Bhatia, The Ito, House No. 25, Narottam Nagar, Vs Ward-5, Near Railway Crossing, Khanna. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajopb6752B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sayyam Garg & Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

HAKAM SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-SANGRUR, SANGRUR

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

condone the delay which has not been considered and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the reason for delay in filing the appeal being army personnel posted in Srinagar having connectivity issues in the area as well as non-service of notice at the correct

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

condoned the delay. In such circumstances we are not inclined to consider reasons sustaining the order of Ld. AO which order is under section 147/144 of the Act. We are constrained to observe that Ld. AO was left with no other alternative but to pass the order in terms of section 144

RISHNOOR KAUR,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay of 374 days in filing the first appeal and dismissed the appeal in-limine, without entering into the merits of the issues raised. The assessee has challenged this dismissal. 2. The assessment in the present case was completed under section 147 read with section 144

AMAR SINGH VILLAGE DARBA KALAN, SIRSA HARYANA,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) & Without Giving Any Further Opportunity, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Technical Ground I.E. On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Which Is Not Proper. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Being Illiterate Not Conversant With The Email Facility And, As Such, He Was Handicapped In Not Filing The Appeal Within Time

condoning the delay and to give the decision on merit as well. 4. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds on merits as taken before him. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

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.

condonation of delay and the same reads as under: "That the assessment in the case of the assessee has been framed vide order dated 24/12/2019 under Section 144

THE ALEWA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALEWA, JIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JIND

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

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

144 of the Income Tax Act i.e. ex parte assessment. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of condonation for delay in filing of appeal. 2 6. That the appellant prays that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC as well

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

144/-. In the financial statements, the assessee has reported the revenues from the Associated Enterprises at Rs 1,91,42,32,704/- considering the cost base and mark up of 15% and since the additional mark up of 1.60% (over and above 15%) has been determined pursuant to the unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement entered into with CBDT dated 6/02/2017