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

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

condonation of delay. This would have permitted the appeal to be evaluated based on its substantive merits. 2. The Total Income reported amounts to Rs. 3,84,520.00. However, the assessment was conducted at a substantially inflated figure of Rs. 1,11,14,956.00, along with penalty u/s 271AAC(1) This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances along with

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 270A of the Act were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide separate impugned appellate orders. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

NOMAN HUSSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A

NOMAN HUSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A

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

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

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

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

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

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

SIDDHARTH SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Singh V. The Ito 1(1) 43/S-3, Greater Green Park Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Frhps5158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the Ld. NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal

VIRAT CONSTRUCTION,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(4) SHAHJAHANPUR-1, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Virat Construction V. The Ito-I(4) Tarin Bahadurganj Shahjahanpur-1 Shahjahanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aapfv3897H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

section 270A of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.477/LKW/2025 Page

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Gupta V. Ito-2(1) 69/192, Chitvapur Lucknow Station Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akcpg5937A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

sections 271AAC, 270A and 271F of the Act separately. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal

SHAFI AHAMED,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Shafi Ahamed V. The Acit 133/194 ‘O’ Block Central Circle 1 Sabzi Mandi Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Alhpa0988P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

sections 271AAB(1A)(b), 271AAB(C) and 270A of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. 2.6 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (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 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

270A and 271AAC of the Act, separately. 2.6 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.7 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC, by raising the following grounds

ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,JHINJHAK KANPUR DEHAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. ITA No.489/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 8 2.1 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Nashik

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer – 5(5) Sumerganj Dharauli Ram Barabanki - 2 Sanehi Ghat Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajnpj8871G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

270A, 271AAC, 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, by raising the following grounds