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(6) r.w. Section 250(4), 250(5), 251

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 RAJBIRINDER SINGH CHAHAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1157/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Vs Ward 5(5), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepc0143E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act without adjudicating the legal issues vide which assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment. b) In second fold of grievance, he pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating the issue, whether assessee has advanced loan of Rs. One Crore to M/s C.J. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Registry

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub section (4), Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who had not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub section (1) of (2) of section 139 would not get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much

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

251 days. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed A.Y.2012-13 2 application alongwith her affidavit duly placed on page No. 30 to 34 of the appeal papers. According to the assessee, she is a school teacher who does not have much knowledge of procedural law under the Income Tax Act, therefore, she was dependent upon her Tax Consultant

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

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

delay was condoned (page 4 to 8 of impugned order). We further notice that from pages 10 to 23 of the impugned order entire written submissions of the assessee is incorporated in the impugned order and basis which impugned order is passed. However before taking the same into consideration the Ld. CIT(A) had sought Remand Report from

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

251 to consider the genuine reason for delay in filing of TDS statement and if found genuine, the same can be reduced or deleted. It is prayed accordingly. 7. In view of above submission, the said delay deserved to be considered leniently & said fee u/s 234E deserves to be deleted. Appropriate relief is prayed.” 5. Per contra

SUKHMINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the Ld

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

condonation of delay, the assessee thereafter failed to file any written submissions despite repeated notices. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that as many as six opportunities were granted but no compliance was made. Thereafter, relying on decisions such as CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461) (SC), CIT vs. Multiplan India

SHRI MAHAVIR NIRWAN MEMORIAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No. 250/Chd/2024

SHRI MAHAVIR NIRWAN MEMORIAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No. 250/Chd/2024