CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (AI, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 200A(c) r.w.s. 234E of the Act. 4. We notice in this factual backdrop that the statutory amendment herein i.e. u/s 200A(c) of the Act, stipulating computation u/s 234E, came to be inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which has been held as having prospective effect only in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 367 (Madras), Sri Rujula

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HLDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HLDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A),, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), , HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDEANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICE,ALMORA vs. ITO - TDS, HALDWANI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 District Programme Office, Versus Income-Tax Officer(Tds), Vikas Bhawan, Almora. Haldwani. Pan:Mrtdq1538F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.08.2019 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Haldwani For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Matter Was Called Out, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice Of Hearing Being Issued Through Registered Post. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua Assessee After Hearing Learned Departmental

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer charged late filing fee under section 234E of the Act and further levied interest under section 220(2