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

147 of the Act on 03/03/2023, and made an addition of Rs 3,60,51,890/- u/s 69A of the act as unexplained cash credit The Impugned order was passed on 03.03.2023 and appeal is filing on 25/09/2023 there is delay of 177 days. There is no proof of service of impugned order to the appellant. As a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

delay is condoned. 4. The Revenue in its appeal challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act and the assessee in its cross objection challenged the validity of 2 I.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023 reopening of assessment on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served

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

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2010 for AY 2008-09. The case of the assessee was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.03.2015, which is after a period of four years

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 62 days and an application dated 26.11.2025 for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated by the AR that due to negligence of Accountant who did not inform the assessee about the passing of the impugned order, therefore

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

reassessment order is also ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in rejecting the application of condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition

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

condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the learned CIT(A). Since the reassessment order was passed ex-party, therefore, in larger interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s 147

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

condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the learned CIT(A). Since the reassessment order was passed ex-party, therefore, in larger interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s 147

ANANYA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

reassessment order without appreciating that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of the alleged documents / information found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act which is impermissible as on the basis of such document / information, only proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act can be initiated and hence assumption

ANANYA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

reassessment order without appreciating that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of the alleged documents / information found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act which is impermissible as on the basis of such document / information, only proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act can be initiated and hence assumption

LATE SHRI DULEECHANDA THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") imposing an addition

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserve to be condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

reassessment from AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 and additions in all amounting to Rs. 18,94,69,803/- were made u/s 2 (22) (e), which were confirmed by CIT (Appeal) - 7 in February 2015 in all four cases. 5. All four following appeals of the Appellant were represented by the same previous counsel, who had represented the appeals

CLAAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :U/S 2001-02

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,10,12,600/-. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.2.2004 at an income of Rs. 8,91,11,357/-. Subsequently, the AO noticed that assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction