SHOBHA YADAV,CHANDPURA BACHHANA ,BILHAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , KNP-W

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

148A(d) and a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee, requiring her to file her return of income. When no response was received from the assessee, notices under section 142(1) were issued to her and were sent to her email address shobhayadav987654@gmail.com and govingyadav3481@gmail.com. When these too failed to receive

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

delay in \nfiling of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is \nadmitted for hearing, on merits. \n(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate \nTribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the \nassessee’s side:\n14 \nINDEX\n**********\nSIR, RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY\n(PAN-ATIPP6520B)\n1. Copy of ITR along

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RUSHDI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-5(1), LUCKNOW

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

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

delay having been caused due to oversight was not deliberate or intentional and therefore, it may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the case may be heard on its merits. After considering the condonation petition and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji

RAMPAL,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

section 148A dated 29/03/2022 was served upon 80me “Ashish Kumar” on 30/03/2022 (the fact is based on certified information Provided by the Income Tax Officer Sitapur, (copy of the same is enclosed as annexure A). Kindly view the service of Notice on fake identity (ASHISH KUMAR’). The person named Ashish Kumar is neither any family member or relative of appellant

SMT. KUMUD YADAV,KANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Kumud Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Plot No. 192A, Awadhpuri Road, Unit, Income Tax Department, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar Nfac, Delhi Pan: Abjpy4062E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Seth, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 11.0.025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Set Aside The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Passed For The A.Y. 016-17 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid As The Same Violates The Provisions Of "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022" Notified On 29.03.22 Framed In Pursuance Of Sub Sections 1 & 2 Of Section 151A Of The Act Laying Down The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 In The Faceless Manner Through Automated Allocation Whereas In The Assessee'S Case It Has Not Been Issued In A Faceless Manner But By Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Who Was Not Assigned The Case In An Automated Manner. (Reliance On Judgement In The Case Of Hexaware Technoligies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others Reported In 464 Itr P. 430 (Paras 32 To 39).

delay and the same was condoned by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) looked through the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal and also considered the written submissions filed by the assessee. After considering these submissions, he noted that due to the alleged non service of notice upon the assessee, the assessee had not made

MOHAMMAD AHATEHSHAM,RAEBARELI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

condone the delay and admit the case for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The ld. AO obtained information from the Insight Portal, that the assessee had made the cash deposits of Rs.2,65,51,250/- with Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue of limitation for passing orders under section 206C(6A) needed to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal noted that while previous ITAT decisions applied a 4-year limitation based on Section 201, the jurisdictional High Court's decision indicated that without a prescribed limitation, action should