DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), HALDWANI

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, HALDWANI

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay

SANTRAM ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty were served physically. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department

ANKIT NAUTIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty was served on him. Thus, sought for condoning the delay. 4. For the reason stated in the application for condonation

MADHUR SHARMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 1(5), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty before the assessing officer, assessee did not explain anything. Before the learned CIT – A assessee filed detailed explanation about the delay in filing of the appeal. The fact remained that the assessee met with an accident along with his wife and was for a considerable time under the medical observation. This fact has not been denied. The learned

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

HOTEL RUDRA CONTINENTAL,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. XIT(A) NFAC, HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.237/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Hotel Rudra Continental, Commissioner Of Income C/O Matta Garg & Co.Chartered Accountants, Vs. Tax (Appeals),Circle 2(1)(1), 15, Astely Hall,Dehradun. Income Tax Office, Pan No.Aadfh6007K Haldwani, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed in limine. It was averred by the Ld. AR that Item no.15 in Form 35 lists the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was mentioned by the Ld. AR that all tax matters of the assessee were being looked after

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

penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing appeals and appeals before

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

penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing appeals and appeals before

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

VAISHNAVI MAA TRADERS,TALITAL BHIMTAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthivaishanvi Maa Traders Vs The Income Tax Officer, Talitalbhimtal, Nainital, Assessment Unit, Uttarakhand New Delhi Pan: Aabav6386L (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Saurabh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

penalty passed by the A.O. under Section 270(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal and Assessee has filed application for condonation

SH. MAHADEV SHIKARI,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

condone 285 and 280 days’ delay, case-wise; respectively in filing of the assessee’s lower appeals instituted on 31st and 30th January, 2023 against the corresponding penalty

MAHADEV SHIKARI,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. ITO, RUDRAUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

condone 285 and 280 days’ delay, case-wise; respectively in filing of the assessee’s lower appeals instituted on 31st and 30th January, 2023 against the corresponding penalty