DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. VYAVSAYIK PARIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Vyavsayik Pariksha Parishad Lucknow 2, Aliganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatv9447J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 17 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 09 2021 O R D E R

condonation of delay, the amount accumulated or set apart had been invested or deposited by the Assessee in the forms or modes specified in section 11(5) of the Act and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in relying on the order dated 19.2.2019 passed under section 119(2

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION(, LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning delay in such cases. The intention of legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

delay in filing of Form 10 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect invited our attention to appeal in I.T.A. No.191 where the order u/s 119(2)(b) has been passed by learned CIT (Exemptions) vide order dated 20/02/2019. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee I.T.A. No.191/Lkw/2019, 197/Lkw/2018 2

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

delay in filing of Form 10 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect invited our attention to appeal in I.T.A. No.191 where the order u/s 119(2)(b) has been passed by learned CIT (Exemptions) vide order dated 20/02/2019. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee I.T.A. No.191/Lkw/2019, 197/Lkw/2018 2

BHALCHANDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

delay in filing of Form 10 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect invited our attention to appeal in I.T.A. No.191 where the order u/s 119(2)(b) has been passed by learned CIT (Exemptions) vide order dated 20/02/2019. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee I.T.A. No.191/Lkw/2019, 197/Lkw/2018 2

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning of delay in filing revised return. It does not appear that any appeal or other legal ground was taken by the assessee with regard to the same.\n\nThe assessee has now come in appeal with regard to grounds as reproduced earlier in the order. At the very outset, we note that

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

condoning delay in such cases. The intention of legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income

LALBAGH CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.104/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Lalbagh Christian Educational V. The Commissioner Of Society Income Tax (Exemption) Lal Bagh, Lucknow-226001. 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Next To Lohia Hospital, Indra Nagar, Luckow-226010. Pan:Aaatl2080P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 10 07 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R

condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before the CIT(Exemptions), the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside. 2. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay

UDAAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR NAGAR vs. CPC BANGLORE, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

condone the delay on application being made by the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore

SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

119(2)(b) of the Act before the learned CIT(A), copy of which is placed at pages 30 to 38 of the paper book. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment

SHRI RAM GOPAL DOHARE,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ram Gopal Dohare, Commissioner Of Income (Appeal), 63-Akashpuram Pilibhit Bypass, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Jagatpur, Kamla Nehru Marg, Bareilly-243006 Bareilly - 243001 Pan – Adord 4122H (Appellant) (Respondent)

119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby authorize the Assessing Officers to make appropriate corrections in the figures of such disputed arrear demands after due verification/reconciliation and after examining the same on merits, whether by way of rectification or otherwise, irrespective of the fact that the period of limitation of four years as provided under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. MS VARUNA WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-1 M/S Varuna V. Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Nehru Warehousing Pvt Ltd Marg, Rampur Garden, Civil Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Ujala Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 23/Lkw/2024 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 276/Lkw/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Varuna Warehousing Pvt Dcit, Circle-1 V. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Ujala Nehru Marg, Rampur Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Garden, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act for claiming unclaimed TDS was filed by the assessee on the basis of hardship but the same was rejected by Ld. CCIT, Allahabad (copy of order is attached).” 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in cross objection: - “1. Because the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred on facts

WSG VENTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DCT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.2024 refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2022-23 with the claimed refund of Rs. 10,000/-. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “01. THAT due to mistake of counsel, the ITR for the AY 2022-23 could not be filed

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

condoned such delay and allowed the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act to the assessee. Page 3 of 13 9. That the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The solitary issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is whether in the facts

RAMPAL,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

2 para 3 of assessment order where Ld. Income tax officer has mentioned as “notice issued but no compliance has been received till date” here Ld. Income tax officer has not mentioned about service of notice in the assessment order. Actually, the notice under section 148A dated 29/03/2022 was served upon 80me “Ashish Kumar” on 30/03/2022 (the fact is based