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

b) Where appeal is under section 248, i.e., appeal by a person denying liability to deduct tax under section 195, the date of payment of tax. (c) In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. 6.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may admit belated application on sufficient cause

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

B) On perusal of records, we find that the appeals filed by the assessee in the office of the learned CIT(A) were beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 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

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

B) On perusal of records, we find that the appeals filed by the assessee in the office of the learned CIT(A) were beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 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

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

B) On perusal of records, we find that the appeals filed by the assessee in the office of the learned CIT(A) were beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) An addition of Rs 70,20,000/- was made concerning the purchase of property. Actual Facts: The aforementioned property was acquired on October 17, 2020, for a total purchase price of Rs 65,00,000.00. The associated stamp duty amounted to Rs 4,55,000.00, along with various court charges and additional fees in accordance with the regulations

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)(b

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)

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2013-14 Charak Health Care & Rural vs. The CPC, Bangalore /DCIT/ACIT Development Society 54, Shastri (Central Circle)-2, Income Tax Nagar, Lucknow-226001 Office, Lucknow PAN: AAEFC9409P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR Date

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

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 Year

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

B) In this case, assessee’s returned income was processed under 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

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

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

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

B) In this case assessment order dated 27/02/2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144AB of the I. T. Act (DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050143843(1) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,03,98,324/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.1,03,98,324/- was made towards variation on respect