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

Bench: This Hon'Ble

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2022-23 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The assessee Society is an educational Institute solely for educational purpose. It is also registered under Section 12AB of the Act vide Registration Order dated

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 263 after a delay of 1740 days contending that there was a delay in filing appeal as income tax practitioner of assessee did not advise assessee to file appeal against order passed by Principal Commissioner under bona fide belief that order passed by Principal Commissioner was not appealable, mistake of lawyer or accountant was a good reason for condonation

RAM PARSAD DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,MARKANDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMBALA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (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. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for there being breach to the Provisions of Section 250

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

delay in filing, as per the order issued under Section 250 of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

250 days deserves to be condoned. 4. Your kind attention is invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention and the assessee is not benefited in filing the appeal belatedly; the delay should be condoned as held in the case of: i. Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal

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)

delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged the action of the AO in levying interest amounting

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

250 of the Act and as such, a delay of 247 days ( 248 days as per Assessee) was caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay in filing is appeal is inadvertent, bonafide and a request was made to condone the aforesaid delay. 3. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives we have gone

ANITA RANI W/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH,CHEEKA GUHLA, KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Act, for A.Y. 2013- 14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 250 days in filing the first appeal. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: (i) That on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

250 of the Act which is herein after referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 2 2015-16 and the corresponding previous period is from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. 2. That following grounds are urged in Form 36 to challenge the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned order

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

GEETA CHATRATH,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference : “Decision on Condonation of Delay

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:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as NFAC was not justified to decide the appeal exparte. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) was not justified not to decide the appeal on merits. 3. That the Learned

ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S LONGIA ENGINEERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay, the order u/s 250 of the Act in appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10146338 dated 11.01.2023 was received in the office on 27.02.2023. The ITA 283/CHD/2023 A.Y.2016-17 Page 3 of 10 assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 29.03.2022 of the ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 read with section