PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKKARA vs. ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2,61,25,664/-, respectively. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned orders dismissed the appeals exparte. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 4. present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,EDAPPAL vs. ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2,61,25,664/-, respectively. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned orders dismissed the appeals exparte. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 4. present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

2(3), Kochi\nAppellant\nRespondent\nAssessee by:\nShri Padmanathan K.V., CA\nRevenue by:\nSmt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.\nDate of Hearing:\n21.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement:\n25.08.2025\nORDER\nThis appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated\n05.02.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.\n2. Brief facts of the case

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX COMMISIONER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset we found that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. We found from para 1 of the order

STATE BANK OF INDIA , THALASSERY( ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),KANNUR vs. ITO (TDS), KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalstate Bank Of India (Erstwhile Sbt) Income Tax Officer-Tds Thalassery Branch Aayakar Bhavan Gundert Road Vs. Konnothumchal Thalassery 670101 Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 [Pan: Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 17.12.2020 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. At the outset, it was observed that the appeal, filed on 13.10.2022, is delayed by 24 days. The condonation petition, filed alongwith, is in the form of a sworn affidavit dated 07.10.2022. The assessee explains that

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions