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.

250(6) of the 25.09.2019 Income Tax Act, 1961 on Income Tax Portal. 6. Due date of filing of appeal before the Hon'ble 24.11.2019 Bench of TTAT against the order of Worthy CIT(A). Actual date of filing of appeal before the 17.08.2022. 7. Hon'ble ITAT Bench with a delay of 997 days. That the delay in filing

THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

6 Addition u/s 69A Rs.48 95,755/- Assessed Income Rs.48,95,755/- 4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed as under: “Condonation of delay In this case, it is found that there is a delay of about 5 months in filing of the Appeal. As per Form 35 filed by the appellant on 27/09/2022, the date

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)

250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). 6

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

6. We have considered the submissions filed by the Revenue on this issue as well as the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee on this issue of condonation of delay. We find that the Revenue has conceded that the Dispatch Register in the office of the ld. CIT(A) Shimla shows that the order was dispatched on 12.02.2016 vide

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

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)

250 of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, finding that the society failed to provide sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under Section 249(3). Despite the society's affidavit from its Secretary explaining the delay due to lack of proper legal guidance

M/S SHAHEED KARTAR SINGH SARABHA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay and appeal is admitted. 7. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That order passed u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 250(6

SUKHDEV SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1142/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sukhdev Singh, The Ito, Village-Dheerpur, Ward No. 3, Po-Khanpur Koliyan, Vs Kurukshetra. Tehsil-Thanesar, Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Etgps8505H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The solitary substantial grievance on merit is that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.55,55,000/-. At the time of hearing, we have passed the following interim order : “The Assessee

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

M/S FATEH SOFTECH PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: The Hon Tale Itat On 13.01.2020. The Present Appeal Is Against The Appellate Order Dtd. 31.10.2019Passed U/S 250(6) By Worthy Cit(A). The Registry Of The Hon’Ble Bench Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Facts Behind The Said Delay & Our Prayer Praying For Condonation Of The Same Are As Under:

delay is condoned. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 10428/17-18 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances

SH. SANDEEP BHARDWAJ,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Addressing The Same, It Is Necessary To Note That The Assessee Has Moved An Adjournment Application On Record. The Ld. Ar At The Outset Requested For Permission To Withdraw The Application Stating That The Request For

delay deserves to be condoned. Ordered accordingly. 7. The parties, thereafter, were directed to argue the appeal on merits, in case they were ready to do so. ITA 1102/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 5 of 6 8. The ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine. Referring

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

M/S N.N. FOREX TRAVEL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT (CPC), TDS, , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also in upholding the levy of fees. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 151/2/15-16 dated 21.08.2017 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250