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

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.”

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 and 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

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(1) on 31.03.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “01. Because the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the issue of condonation of delay

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 u/s 249(3) of the Act, which is against the natural justice. 9. That the assessee craves leave for the addition, modification, and deletion of any other grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appeal filed by the assessee before

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

250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which respective arising out of order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and order of penalty passed u/s 271AAC of the Act anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Lucknow Page 1 of 12 Rakesh Rawat Vs ITO Ward 4(1) ITA No.383

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

250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which respective arising out of order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and order of penalty passed u/s 271AAC of the Act anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Lucknow Page 1 of 12 Rakesh Rawat Vs ITO Ward 4(1) ITA No.383

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.09.2023. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “1.That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the reason for delay beyond control of the appellant. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the reason for delay that the appeal is filed delayed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16.05.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal assessee against the orders of the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) that passed for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 15.06.2020. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. 1 Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to facts

PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.66,87,140/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

ASHOK KUMAR RAJA,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4),, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraashok Kumar Raja V. Ito-2(4) Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit- Pilibhit, U.P. 262001. Pan:Alppr2326G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

Section 254(3) of the Act, I condone the delay in filing of this appeal and I admit the appeal for decision of merits. 3. In this case, vide assessment order dated 28/10/2016, u/s 147/144 of the Act, the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.13,53,500/-. Further, the AO passed an exparte order thereby made an addition

NEYVELI UTTAR PRADESH POWER LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 2(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2021-22. 2. Since identical issues are involved in the above captioned appeals, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page

NEYVELI UTTAR PRADESH POWER LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 2(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2021-22. 2. Since identical issues are involved in the above captioned appeals, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.151 & 153/LKW/2024 Page

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal. The appeal is admitted for decision of merits. 3. In this case, the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1

RAJIV KUMAR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(5) SHAHJAHANPUR-2, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajiv Kumar V. Ito-1(5) 17 Rajeev Traders, Tiraha Aaykar Bhawan, Nh-24, Bajar, Powayan, Shahjahanpur- Bareilly Mod, 242401. Shahjahanpur. Pan: Aivpg8841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. 2. In this case, vide assessment order dated 19/11/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 144 of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.10,74,614/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition amounting to Rs.6

SANJAY KUMAR,NIGHASAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC), AO ASSESSMENT UNIT(NFAC), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Kumar V. The Ito (Nfac) 230, Khairi Garh Assessment Unit Nighasan New Delhi Kheri Pan:Fsmpk7383H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Kumar (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 06 2024 O R D E R

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10266784 vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059886118(1) dated 18.01.2024 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in: (1) The delay of 107 days