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

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 69A of the Act. It is therefore, submitted that delay in filing the 6 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned

JATINDER PAL SINGH

delay of 25 days in re- filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 16/2021 3. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 1st November, 2019 passed under Section 2021:DHC:455-DB ITA 16/2021 Page 2 of 15 254(1) of the Income

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee through grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is regarding invocation of her revisionary authority under section 263 by the ld. PCIT, Central Kanpur, at Meerut through his order dated 27.03.2025. As per brief factual matrix of the case, appellant had filed original Return

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

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

section 69A and taxed the same u/s 115BBE i.e. enhanced rate @60%. The assessing officer passed assessment order on 15.10.2019. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT (A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by taking a view that there was delay of 707 days in filing first

SOM PRAKASH,SAHARANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the disputed cash deposits of Rs.6,45,600/- were out of withdrawals made by the assessee, as there were sufficient cash withdrawals during the year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["148", "143(2)", "142(1)", "69A

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied in the sum of Rs. 1,06,83,400/- at the rate of 200% of underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied in the sum of Rs. 1,06,83,400/- at the rate of 200% of underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income

KRISHNA GOPAL SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 28, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied in the sum of Rs. 1,06,83,400/- at the rate of 200% of underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

69A of the Act. (ii) That the above confirmation of disallowances/addition made by Ld AO amounting to Rs. 20,75,000/- on account of loans and advances given to blood relatives/family members and to employee through banking channel. (iii) That the above disallowance and addition has been confirmed merely relying on the assessment order. (iv) That the addition has been

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution ex parte in limine without deciding the issues on merits as per law. 4. The condonation of delay

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

delay of 295 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and appeal is admitted for consideration and adjudication. 6. On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit

PAVANI PARAMESHWARA RAO,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-63(1), DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 The appeal is time barred by 34 days. An application dated 25.03.2025 requesting condonation of delay supported with affidavit of legal representative, 2 placed on record has been perused and even learned DR has not seriously disputed the delay aspect

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order

VINIT KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 2(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalitas No.7588 & 7589/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vinit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, C-66, 2Nd Floor, Ward-2(5), Noida. Sector-108, Noida, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Asjpk8057E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Chouhan, Ca Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Both Dated 15.10.2025 For Ay 2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act Dt. 23.02.2024 & Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac Of The Act Dt.12.07.2024. 2. Brief Facts Are That Appellant Is A Resident Individual & Not Filed His Return Of Income. The Ao Based On The Information That That Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 3,07,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda & No Return Of Income Was Filed, Initiated The Reassessment Proceedings After Following The Due Procedure

69A and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Thereafter the AO proceeded to complete the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act initiated in the reassessment order and vide order dt. 12.07.2024 has levied the penalty of Rs. 4,41,500/-. 3. Against these orders, two separate appeal were filed by the assessee before

VINIT KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD (2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalitas No.7588 & 7589/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vinit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, C-66, 2Nd Floor, Ward-2(5), Noida. Sector-108, Noida, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Asjpk8057E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Chouhan, Ca Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Both Dated 15.10.2025 For Ay 2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act Dt. 23.02.2024 & Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aac Of The Act Dt.12.07.2024. 2. Brief Facts Are That Appellant Is A Resident Individual & Not Filed His Return Of Income. The Ao Based On The Information That That Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 3,07,500/- In His Bank Account With Bank Of Baroda & No Return Of Income Was Filed, Initiated The Reassessment Proceedings After Following The Due Procedure

69A and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Thereafter the AO proceeded to complete the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act initiated in the reassessment order and vide order dt. 12.07.2024 has levied the penalty of Rs. 4,41,500/-. 3. Against these orders, two separate appeal were filed by the assessee before