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

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

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

6. That if the appellant had received an opportunity of being heard then he could explain the all facts.” 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal

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

6. 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, 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

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

M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CHILWARIA, BRH, C/O AYYUBI CHAMBER , RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262802,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 186/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cane Development Council Chilwaria, Brh C/O. Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Up-262802. Pan: Aaatc6087H . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

delay in instituting the present appeal, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 5 Cane Development Council Chilwaria, BRH Vs ITO ITA No.186/LKW/2023 AY: 2014-15 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji

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

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

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

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

6 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal or raise any new ground appeal during the pendency of appeal.” 1A. This appeal has been filed beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. An application requesting for condonation of delay has been filed from the assessee’s side

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

RAVI KANT SHARMA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

250(6) of the Act. 2. BECAUSE without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO-2(3), Bareilly (who finally passed the assessment order), as such he did not validly assume jurisdiction to make assessment in case of the "appellant" as such the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed

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

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