MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoning the delay of 183 days for which the assessee\nfiled the affidavit before us explaining the delay, the reasons for the\ndelay in filing of the appeal.\n08. The Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that\nthe assessment framed by the Id. AO u/s 147 read with section 144B\nof the Act dated 23.03.2022, is without

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condoning the delay of 183 days for which the assessee filed the affidavit before us explaining the delay, the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. 08. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2022, is without

SAGAR BOTHRA,HOWRAH vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sagar Bothra Nfac C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & The National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2 Nd Floor, E- Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Vs. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, Wb Stadium, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb4505H Assessee By : Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pampa Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Sagar Bothra; A.Y. 2013-14 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only one issue which is against the invalid assessment framed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] vide order dated 13.03.2022, which is without jurisdiction and is accordingly, invalid

CHHANDA KAR,TAMLUK vs. ITO, WARD 27(3),, HALDIA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Through E-Filling.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, the appeal was called out and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVINASH COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the order by deleting the amount Rs 1,91,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 without verifying

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condoning a modest delay in filing appeal of 15 days in spite of reasonable cause shown before him. 2. (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held re-opening proceedings u/s 147/144 to be invalid and was liable to be quashed. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the Jurisdictional A.O. lacked jurisdiction