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:-

263, the ld. AO issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) asking the assessee to prove the cash credit in respect of the aforesaid three parties. In response, it was submitted that the assessee had filed a petition under section 245C(i) of the I.T. Act before the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi on 22.12.2006, in which

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

section 263 of the Act, the order passed by CIT(E) be quashed.” 2. It is observed that the assessee’s appeal is delayed by 116 days. Subsequently, a petition has been filed for the condonation

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

REHBER FOOD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,,BAREILLY vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rehber Food Industries Pvt Pr. Commissioner Of V. Ltd Income Tax Old Name, M/S. Marya Forzen Aayakar Bhawan, Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Bareilly-243005. B-51, Second Floor, Butler Plaza,Civil Lines, Bareilly- 243001. Pan:Aafcm8846E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri. Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2024 O R D E R

Section 263 did not provide due, sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to plead his case which is evidence enough of the marshal administration of law by the said authority. The circumventing circumstances, speaks of volumes for itself. The LD. Authority has processed in the matter with some pre- conceived notion and predetermined mind. 8. None was present

SANJAY JHAWAR,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.161/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Jhawar V. Pcit, Bareilly 253, Madho Bari, Bareilly- Cr Building, Bareilly- 243005. 243001. Pan:Aerpj2156F अपीलाथी/(Appellant) प्रत्यथी/(Respondent) अपीलाथी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यथी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 16 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 263 by not considering the submission of the assessee and not considering the records available with the file of the AO, the order of the Ld. PCIT is illegal, invalid and is against the principal of natural justice. In the light of the facts of the case and above discussion, your highness is requested kindly to either restore

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts of the case in all the three assessment orders are similar. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P with respect to the interest 6 ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earned on deposits made by it with the banks

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts of the case in all the three assessment orders are similar. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P with respect to the interest 6 ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earned on deposits made by it with the banks

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

delay in \nfiling of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is \nadmitted for hearing, on merits. \n(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate \nTribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the \nassessee’s side:\n14 \nINDEX\n**********\nSIR, RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY\n(PAN-ATIPP6520B)\n1. Copy of ITR along

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

delay was unintentional and caused by the failure of the local counsel to inform\nthe assessee about the passing of the appeal order and the pre-occupation by the\ncounsels at Lucknow with the tax audit and return filing. It was, therefore, prayed\nthat in the interest of justice, the appeal may be admitted. After considering the facts\nas narrated

MARYA DAY AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BAREILLY vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

263 of the I. T. Act. In the aforesaid impugned order of Pr.CIT, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was set aside, to be framed de novo as per law. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) During the course of hearing, the assessee was represented by none

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

condone the delay. At the\ntime of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did\nnot press the limitation issue, and agreed to the appeal being decided on\nmerits. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of the assessee as barred\nby limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is\nbeing decided on merits