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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. The assessee has taken ten grounds of appeal, however, her grievance revolves around two issues, namely; a) The CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the validity of re-assessment order which was otherwise based on non service of a valid notice u/s 148 of the Income

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

282 days in filing of appeal for the A.Y. 2017-18 and hear the appeal on merits of the case. Thanking You Yours faithfully For Ch. Lekh Raj Educational & Charitable Trust, (Satpal Singh), Secretary APPELLANT 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 ITA No.730,763 & 764/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18

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

282 days in filing of appeal for the A.Y. 2017-18 and hear the appeal on merits of the case. Thanking You Yours faithfully For Ch. Lekh Raj Educational & Charitable Trust, (Satpal Singh), Secretary APPELLANT 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 ITA No.730,763 & 764/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18

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

282 days in filing of appeal for the A.Y. 2017-18 and hear the appeal on merits of the case. Thanking You Yours faithfully For Ch. Lekh Raj Educational & Charitable Trust, (Satpal Singh), Secretary APPELLANT 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 ITA No.730,763 & 764/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18

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

SCIENCE AND TECH ENTER PARK STEP, THAPAR UNIVERSITY,PATIALA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, C R BUILDING CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

delay is condoned. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(E) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld.CIT(E) has summarily rejected the application of the assessee without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee

NAVEET SHARMA,VILL.NAGABAG P.O.BANDROL vs. ITO WARD KULLU, KULLU

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 31.03.2018 for assessment year the year under consideration, declaring a total taxable income of Rs.3,84,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for cash deposited during the demonetization

GASTROENTEROLOGY PATIENT CARE WELFARE AND RESEARCH TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 98/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Gastroenterology Patient Care Vs. The Commissioner Welfare & Research Trust, बनाम Of Income Tax Department Of Gastroenterology, Exemptions, F-Block, Nehru Hospital, Chandigarh Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadtg8271C अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. S.K Bhasin, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and as such, we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Trust created by eminent doctors of Department of Gastroenterology, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The Assessee made an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income

SAHIL PHUTELA,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1383/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sahil Phutela, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh,Advocate, Vs Ward -4, 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Ambala. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cmvpp7771G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 8. In the light of above, if we examine, then it emerges out that the earlier penalty proceeding was being prosecuted by Faceless Assessment Unit but when it was going to be time barred, it was transferred

BALJINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

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

delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal is condoned. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has 2. invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the ld.CIT(A) has summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and without any discussion on merits

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other

VARITRA FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, AMBALA, AMBALA

Bench: The Cit(A) On 14.12.2024 Against The Intimation Dated 27.11.2023 Issued Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Unaware Of The Said Intimation As The Registered Email Address Was Inaccessible & The Order Was Not Served Through Any Valid Mode Prescribed Under Law. The Assessee Contended That It Became Aware Of The Order Only Upon Receipt Of A Telephonic Communication From The Department

Section 282 of the Act, read with Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, service is valid only if effected either physically or through the registered email address. Service through SMS or mere uploading on the CPC portal is not recognised under the statute. In the absence of a valid service, the commencement of limitation is itself in question