KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

cash deposits and assessee did not file return of income. After recording reasons, the case was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2023 with prior approval of the DCIT, Dehradun. Despite intimation letter dated 17.08.2022, multiple notices under Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W01(1)(1), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.104/Ddn/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. Pan-Alzpa7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

delay is condoned and appeal of assessee is admitted for adjudication. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. 5. The assessee has challenged the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the orders of the AO for the reason that on five occasions both the appeals were listed

SMT. MADHU GUPTA,U.S.NAGAR vs. PR.CIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

condone the delay of 1,181 days in filing the present Appeal subject to Assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 3 Smt. Madhu Gupta 6. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed on 16/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income

IRFAN AHMED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Irfan Ahmed, Vs. Ito, 35/224, Mulsim Colony, Ward-1(1)(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bxgpa9671P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

cash deposits. Thereafter, he engaged a new professional Chartered Accountant Mr. Agarwal and filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A). It was submitted that the ld CIT(A) never asked any question regarding condonation of delay

SUBHASH SINGHAL,HARIDWAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)(2)ITO, ROORKEE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

cash deposit of Rs.2,11,31,500/-). 4. Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). There was a delay of 244 days before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) did not condone

SANJAY KUMAR ANAND ,DEHRADUN vs. DDIT/ADIT (INTL) , DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Delay of 33 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant has raised his sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action

SHRI ASHWANI GARG,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), HARDWAR, HARDWAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Ashwani Garg, Vs. Ito, Plot No. 106-106A, Sector- Ward-1(3)(1), 6A, Sidcul, Haridwar, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Alcpg7518A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in upholding the addition of Rs 21,90,500/- made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposits

RAHUL AGGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Rahul Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, Near Indian Gas Office, Ward-1(1)(1)(3), Doiwala, Dehradun 248 140 Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aiypa1363Q Assessee By : Shri Shasank Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Rahul Aggarwal 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in sustaining the addition made in the sum of Rs 9,43,033/- on account of cash deposits