MASCOT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTARAKHAND vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, -

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Vs. National Faceless Ltd, Assessment Centre, Plot No. B-155, Eldeco, Sidcul, Delhi Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, 262 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm4504H Assessee By : Shri Atul Ninawat, Partner Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- M/s. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Ltd “1. The initiation of re-assessment proceedings is bad in law as well as facts of the case and the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 should

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

delay in filing the appeal by 08 days is condoned. 3. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required no investigation, thus the same be admitted. The additional grounds of appeal are as under:- Ground No. 12 “Because

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

delay in filing the appeal by 08 days is condoned. 3. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required no investigation, thus the same be admitted. The additional grounds of appeal are as under:- Ground No. 12 “Because

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record

SH. NITIN SINGHAL,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, U.S.NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 08/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered U.S. Nagar Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Ward-2(2)(4), Bajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Udhamsingh Nagar, Pan: Aqwps4877P Uttarakhand, 262401

Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record. 2 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO 3. There is a delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal

SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

reopened u/s 147 of the Act vide notice dated 18.10.2016. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a return of income on 13.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,99,580/-. The AO has given a list of dates in para no.2 on page-2 of the assessment order, where, out of nine occasions, there was no compliance

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 73 days, for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit is filed wherein it is stated that assessee was not well and was advised for complete bed rest. Therefore he could

NANDAN SINGH,PITHORAGARH vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Nandan Singh, Vs. Cit(Appeals)/National Payya Pauri, Faceless Appeal Pithoragarh Cemtre(Nfac) Assessment Uttarakhand Centre, Pan No. Bfaps4805M Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay of 30 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the appellant/assessee are against order dated 09.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi arising out of order dated 29.12.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) under Section

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

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 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated

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

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 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.” 25. The doctrine of merger results

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.” 25. The doctrine of merger results