VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

249(2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

249(2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

249(2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice as the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee.” In this regard, as per Section 249(2

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, RURA,RURA, KANPUR DEHAT vs. CPC, BANGALORE ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

249(2) of I.T.A. No.102/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” (A.1) In the aforesaid appellate order, the learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not made any submissions for justifying substantial delay

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

condoning inordinate delay of 251 days for which no cogent reason has been given. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a).” (C). Materials on record have been perused. The learned Departmental Representative has been heard, who relied

BHAVAN RAVAT,RAEBARELI vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

condonation of delay, not acknowledging that there was no malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of 827 days, and that the delay in filing the appeal within the limitation period under section 249(2

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ due to compelling ‘Medical Reasons’, from filing of the appeal within the time limit prescribed under section 249(2

RAKESH RAWAT,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1),, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal against order of assessment or penalty order was required to be filed within thirty days from the date the orders sought to appealed were received by the assessee. In the instant case the appeal against impugned orders admittedly were filed before on 18/11/2022 & 19/11/2022 respectively. Ostensibly with a delay

RAKESH RAWAT,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1), , LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal against order of assessment or penalty order was required to be filed within thirty days from the date the orders sought to appealed were received by the assessee. In the instant case the appeal against impugned orders admittedly were filed before on 18/11/2022 & 19/11/2022 respectively. Ostensibly with a delay

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. 3. On merits, the ld. authorized representative of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for want of prosecution of the appeals by the assessee, taking adverse view of non-compliance with the notices issued

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. 3. On merits, the ld. authorized representative of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for want of prosecution of the appeals by the assessee, taking adverse view of non-compliance with the notices issued

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. 3. On merits, the ld. authorized representative of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for want of prosecution of the appeals by the assessee, taking adverse view of non-compliance with the notices issued

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

section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal. 6. In view

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2) and due to oversight, the auditor did not file the report online. However, the return of income alongwith the requisite documents was submitted on 30.09.2013 to the Income Tax Department manually. The CPC, AO without considering the peculiar facts of the case and the related law, assessed the total income at Rs. 3,82,80,430/- by disallowing

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND WELFARE AWARENESS,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrisudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1) of the Act whereby adjustment was made, making addition to the returned income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the assessee’s appeal was not admitted on limitation ground. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2)(C), the appeal was to be presented within 30 days after its service. However, in the present case, the appeal had been filed beyond time limit with a delay of more than six years. Reproducing the provisions of section 249 in his order and relying upon the decision in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate(Huf) vs. ACIT (Civil

SATYAWADI HARISHCHANDRA SWASTHYA PARIKSHAN SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

249(2) of the Act. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19/07/2024 of learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. The Ld Addl/JCIT (Appeal) Patna erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal solely due to the reason for not condoning the delay being