SURENDRA SINGH,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Shrir.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Surendra Singh, Vs. Dcit, Gali No. 1, Subhash Nagar, Circle, Haridwar Jwalapur, Ramesh Varampuram, Hardwar Pan: Barps1918M (Appellant) (Respondent)

30 lakhs u/s 69 of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property by the Assessee. 3. Against the said additions the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner. It appears from the impugned order that the Assesseeon various dates failed to appear before the ld. Commissioner to prosecute its appeal and later on after engaging new counsel

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

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

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)

Section 143(2) of the Act were not responded by the assessee. Ld. AO vide order dated 29.12.2023, made the addition of Rs.19,96,881/-. 3. Against assessment order dated 29.12.2023, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant/assessee preferred present application for condonation of delay of 30

SH. SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sanjay Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 34 34Shankerpurhukumatpur Ward 1(2)(3), Dehradun, 248197, Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand Pan: Aaubpk4159P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO about passing of the order impugned only after approaching another Chartered Accountant and on coming to know belatedly about the passing of the order impugned, immediately the Assessee filed the present Appeal. Thus contended that the delay caused in filing the present Appeal is not intentional and sought for condoning the delay in filing

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

30 days of service of Notice of Demand) but since her Mobile Number was not linked to the Aadhar Card, electronic furnishing of the Form 35 could not be made within the time allowed under Section 249(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the Challan Status Sheet as downloaded from the Tax Information Network

MEENAKSHI KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing] [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Meenakshi Kumar, Vs Pr.Cit, C/O-Matta Garg & Co., Dehradun. 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Pan-Agipk3345G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.S.Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr. Cit-1, Dehradun Dated 09.03.2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

delay in filing the appeal is hereby, condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 03.02.2016 declaring total income of INR 2,44,310/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) accepting

ANNU KUMAR,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DERHADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Annu Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Hemant Arora & Co. Subhash Road, Llp 354-B, 30 Civil Lines, Dehradun, Roorkee Roorkee, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Bttpk3087N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavitra Arora, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 Order

30 Civil Lines, Dehradun, Roorkee Roorkee, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: BTTPK3087N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Pavitra Arora, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless

GYANENDRA PANWAR,DEHRADUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shr Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.238/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Gyanendra Panwar, Assistant Director Of Income Nanda Devi Enclave, Badripur, Vs. Tax, Cpc,Ito,Ward 1(3)(4), Dehradun-248005, Uttarakhand. Aaykar Bhawan, 16, Civil Lines, Pan No.Adipp2853R Near Iit Roorkee, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

30. The assessee was further under treatment for prostate issues at Max Healthcare, Noida. Prescription dated 15.02.2025 is enclosed at page no. 31. The appellant was under treatment at Kailash Hospital, Dehradun. The OPD prescription dated 20.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 are enclosed for ready reference at page no. 31- 23, 5. Treatment of Mother: The mother of the appellant, Smt. Savitri

RAJESH AGGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, B-4, New Sabzi Mandi, Vikash Central Circle, Nagar, Distti. Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpa7592E Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that this tribunal has already decided the appeal of the assessee up to AY 2016-17 vide its order dated 23.06.2023 wherein, all the appeals of the assessee

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 2. As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. AY: 2011-12 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: That the Order passed

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessment order came to be passed on 16/12/2021 u/s 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

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessment order came to be passed on 16/12/2021 u/s 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

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 condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act referred to two reasons. The first reason was with regard to non-declaration of the account in ING Vysya Bank with a credit of Rs.70

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 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