PRAVEEN SINGH RANA ,UTTARKASHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthipraveen Singh Rana Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Nagar Palika Complex, (Appeals)/ National Faceless Neartiloth Pul, Barahat Appeal Centre, Range, Uttarakash Delhi Collectorate, Uttarakhand (Respondent) Pan: Aoopr7186N (Applicant) Appellant By Sh. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv Respondent By Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 1444B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 425 days in filing the First Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dated 26/12/2025, dismissed the First 2 Praveen Singh

HASEEN,HARIDWAR vs. I T O ,WARD 1(3)(1),, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthihaseen Vs Ito 38, Gadowali, Bahadarpur Jat, Ward 1(3)(1), Income Tax Haridwar-249404 Office, Yogi Bhawan, Industrial Pan: Aodph1131G Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv Respondent By Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .04.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

condone the delay of 201 days in filing the present Appeal. 3 Haseen vs. ITO 6. Brief facts of the case are on merit are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 22/03/2022 u/s 147 r.w. S 144 read with Section

SH. ARVIND SINGH ,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, RISHIKESH, RISHIKESH

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

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

delay of 88 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 24/03/2023under Section 147

NAUGAON BAHUUDESIYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,UTTARKASHI vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) citing sufficient cause. The case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["250", "147

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

147 r.w. Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order

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

147 r.w. Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order

USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147

USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 2 Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant is a company established under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with

MOHAMMAD IRFAN,KASHIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

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

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrisanjay Awasthimohammad Irfan V Ito Mahuakheraganj, Near Water, Tank, S Ward 2(2)(1), Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) Kashipur, Uttarakhand 244713, Uttarakhand Pan:Adopi8997D Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,16,13,114/-/- as against returned Nil income filed by the Assesseeby making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06/12/2023, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before

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

MR. AMAN AGARWAL,RUDRAPUR vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 237/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Mr.Aman Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No. B 06, Street No. 02, 2(1)(4)(, Rudrapur, Income Near Shiv Mandir, Model Tax Office, Rudrapur- Colony, Rudrapur, 263153, 263153, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Aoppa3091L Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

147 r.w. Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,01,70,730/- as against returned income of Rs. 3,23,730/- by making an addition of Rs. 98,47,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash 2 Aman Agarwal VS. ITO deposits/credits. Aggrieved

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)

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

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)

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

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

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 on eight occasions

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

delay in filing the appeal, therefore, the same is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 in terms of the reason recorded which are available at PB page 21 & 22. According to the same, assessee took

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