MOHIT SUKHIJA,NEW DELHI vs. NFA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 24.08.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,960/-. The said return was revised on 29.12.2017 wherein the total income was revised at Rs.3,18,750/-. The AO had information that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURUGRAM vs. PANCHAM REALCON PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed against the Revenue in

delay of 456 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 49281/2025(Exemption) 3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 295/2025 5. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, NEW DELHI vs. B.R. GOEL & SONS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay is condoned and appeals of the revenue are hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. Let us take up the appeal of the revenue for the Asst Year 2012-13. 5. Though the revenue has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. B.R. GOEL & SONS, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay is condoned and appeals of the revenue are hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. Let us take up the appeal of the revenue for the Asst Year 2012-13. 5. Though the revenue has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified

KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Cash Deposit in Demonetization period under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. 2. That CIT Appeal is erred in not invoking section 250(4) and (6) and Rule 46A(4) suo-moto in non verifying from the AO the authenticity of self explanatory/ specific issue as per Ground

RAJIV KUMAR KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 36(6), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us. The Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit & Stated That Due To Acute Weakness & Prolonged Illness, Appeal Could Not Be Completed & Filed Within Time. When This Was Rajiv Kumar Khurana Vs. Ito Confronted With The Ld. Dr, He Did Not Raise Any Serious Objections For Condonation Of Delay. Hence, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication.

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is small trader engaged in the business of trading of watches and running its proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s Top Trading Co., from last so many years. Assessee is filing his return of income

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condone the said delay. 18. This is an appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2023, levying a penalty of Rs.21,63,113/- in respect of the cash deposits

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condone the said delay. 18. This is an appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2023, levying a penalty of Rs.21,63,113/- in respect of the cash deposits

BANARSI DAS GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(6), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbanarsi Das Gupta Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B 35, Maharana Pratap Ward-43(6), Enclave, Near Rani Bagh, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahb6825L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Vaibhav Guta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2026

condone the delay as Assessee was prevented from Banarsi Das Gupta HUF sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

cash deposit explained by way of the benefit of telescoping of the on-money component. Ground 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

cash deposit explained by way of the benefit of telescoping of the on-money component. Ground 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment. PB-6 is Annexure-C supplied by the Department, which would show that the total deposit in the Bank account of the assessee was Rs.2,05,54,090/- [Whereas the A.O. has wrongly made

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment. PB-6 is Annexure-C supplied by the Department, which would show that the total deposit in the Bank account of the assessee was Rs.2,05,54,090/- [Whereas the A.O. has wrongly made

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

cash deposited at Rs.25,00,000/- against correctly Rs.12,91,884/-.” Application of assessee seeking condonation of delay: - 2. I have

RAHUL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. VIRENDRA BHATI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO , WARD-5(2)(5), NOIDA

In the result, grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Virendra Income Tax Officer, Bhati) (Auwpb4560C), 52, Village Vs Ward-5(2)(5),Aayakar Bhawan, Makauda Pali, Gautam Budh Nagar, Sector-24, Noida, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-203207 Uttar Pradesh-201307 Pan:Eempr0637L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

delay in filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned. 5. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.45.00 lakhs on account of cash deposit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

delay of 10 days in filing of instant cross objection is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening/reassessment itself as the learned lower authorities have set into motion

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

deposits; data-wise cash flow statement was also submitted; the purpose of withdrawal was also submitted and also the reason for redeposit of the said amount into the said account. Therefore, it has been wrongly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 31 of the impugned order that these were not submitted. 9. That under the facts