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

section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The idea behind the law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The objection

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

section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The idea behind the law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The objection

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

section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The idea behind the law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The objection

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

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to Satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. Page 4

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

delay of more than 1 year 4 months. 4.2. For the sake of clarity relevant provisions of Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of appeal to the CJT(A) and limitation, are reproduced here under: " 249. Form of appeal and limitation : (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form and shall

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances Of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, overlooking that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a self-contained enactment and section 249

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

249 (3) of the ITA, 1961. Page 4 of 8 In view of the above, I propose not to condone delay in filing of appeal by 251 days in View of following further discussion. 8.1.1 The appeal is dismissed in limine as it is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after

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

4 agricultural land totaling Rs 34,46,000.00, and an injection of personal capital for the remaining amount. Documentation Pertaining to the loan, as well as the sale deed of ITA Nos. 795 to 798/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 9 agricultural land, has been attached along with bank statement for your review and reference. c) Disallowance of Rs 1,07,528/was

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

4(1) ITA No.383 & 384/LKW/2023 8. We have heard rival parties’ submissions on limited issue condonation of delay occurred in instituting the appeal before Ld. first appellate authority and request seeking remand of matters therefore and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1983 perused the material placed on record. We note that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s

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

4(1) ITA No.383 & 384/LKW/2023 8. We have heard rival parties’ submissions on limited issue condonation of delay occurred in instituting the appeal before Ld. first appellate authority and request seeking remand of matters therefore and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1983 perused the material placed on record. We note that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s

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)

249 of the Income Tax Act and held that the same could only be admitted if the CIT(A) was satisfied that the 4 Charak Health Care & Rural Development Society A.Y. 2013-14 assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days. However, after considering the fact that the order under section

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

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

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

BALRAJ SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-I(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. I.T.A. No.857/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 The facts of the case, in brief, are that, in the present case, the (C) appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine, without going into the merits of the appeal, invoking section 249(4

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

249(4)(b) of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, be set aside. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not giving finding on the merits of the case/appeal, which even otherwise should ought to have been given, the order passed by the CIT(A) being contrary

KRISHAN PAL SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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 of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision