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

section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause". 'Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then

MOHINDER PAL SUTHAR,SIRSA vs. ITO, W-3, SIRSA

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

Bench: Proceeding To Address The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Is Relevant To First Address The Delay Of 210

delay is condoned. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex ITA 827/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 9 and the parties were directed to argue the appeal on merits in case they were ready to do so. 5. The ld. AR inviting attention to the copy

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)

46A because the underlying delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine as non-maintainable on technical grounds 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing

RAJWANT KAUR,PEHOWA, KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, WARD 3, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal With A Delay Of 408 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay. In The Condonation Petition, The Assessee Has Explained That She Is A Farmer By Occupation, Residing In A Rural Area & Has Very Limited Knowledge Of Income Tax Laws As Well As Online Procedures. It Has Been Stated That She Was Not Aware Of The Requirement To Check Or Respond Through The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal & Came To Know About The Demand Only Upon Receipt Of A Physical Notice From The Department. Thereafter, She Immediately Sought Professional Assistance. The Delay, According To The Assessee, Is Wholly Unintentional & Caused Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised several grounds challenging the validity of reassessment on account of non- service of notice under section 148, alleged non-speaking order on objections, incorrect appreciation of facts relating to transfer of ancestral agricultural land without consideration, and denial

SHER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGRUR

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

46A. 6. That the appellant craves the right to add, alter, or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing 7. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in sustained the addition made by the learned income tax officer, Sangrur by applying the special rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, whereas provisions

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

46A, placed before both authorities demonstrating that the land sold by the Appellant is a rural agricultural land and hence not a capital asset. 3 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law since the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. passed the 2nd impugned order without

M/S PURE DRINK LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Hon'Ble Chandigarh Itat Was 27Th March 2020. (Ii) It Is Submitted That Management Of Appellant Company Is Based Is Delhi. Owing To Covid-19 Pandemic Nationwide Lock Down Was Enforced By The Government From 22Nd March 2020 & Therefore The Appellant Was Unable To Physically File The Appeal Documents Before Hon'Ble Itat.

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 4. Following grounds has been raised in this appeal: 1. That on facts and in law order passed by CIT(A)dated 09thSeptember 2019(to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of appellant)is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on facts

BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (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: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in passing the order without appreciating the facts, documentary evidences produced

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

SHRI SACHIN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1489/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sachin Goyal Acit- Circle-7 बनाम/ Vs. 29/1, The Mall Ludhiana. Ludhiana 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-3117-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) & Vk Bhalla (Ca)- Ld Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 20-08-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-03-

delay of one day in both the appeals which stand condoned. 2. It emerges that the assessee purchased certain land for Rs.469.98 Lacs out of which the payment of Rs.54.89 Lacs was made in cash. The land was held as stock-in-trade and accordingly, Ld. AO formed an opinion that the cash payment so made by the assessee would

SHRI SACHIN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1489/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Chandi/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sachin Goyal Acit- Circle-7 बनाम/ Vs. 29/1, The Mall Ludhiana. Ludhiana 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-3117-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) & Vk Bhalla (Ca)- Ld Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 20-08-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 20-03-

delay of one day in both the appeals which stand condoned. 2. It emerges that the assessee purchased certain land for Rs.469.98 Lacs out of which the payment of Rs.54.89 Lacs was made in cash. The land was held as stock-in-trade and accordingly, Ld. AO formed an opinion that the cash payment so made by the assessee would