MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for standalone reason that the assessee despite 9 Mumtaz Ali Mohd vs. ITO having been afforded 5 opportunities, i.e., vide notices dated 04/10/2023, 20/10/2023, 08/11/2023, 24/11/2023 and 18/12/2023 had failed

VENKATARATNAM TIRIMINCHI,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

condone the delay of 192 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on specific information that though the assessee had during the subject year made cash deposits in his bank account and was also in receipt of interest income, but had not filed his return of income

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1247 & 1111/H/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Optiserv Muskan Services Vs. 1) Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 16(3), PAN – AAACO 59993P Hyderabad. 2) ITO, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1247 & 1111/H/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Optiserv Muskan Services Vs. 1) Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 16(3), PAN – AAACO 59993P Hyderabad. 2) ITO, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali

MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short ‘Ld. AR’) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves a delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned