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

272A(1)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs.40,000/-. The assessee’s appeal against this was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 27.09.2024. The appeal vide ITA. No.798/LKW/2024, pertains to penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, amounting to Rs.6,34,937/-. The assessee’s appeal against this

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.”

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

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

272A(1) (d) of the Act. 10. BECAUSE on the facts and circumstances the "appellant" is not liable for interest under section 234B of the Act and ITA No.62/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 8 consequently the ld. "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Id. Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged under this section. 11. BECAUSE the order appealed against

TIRLOCHAN SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirlochan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Post Kadher Choura Ward 2(5) Rampur Kone, Puranpur Pilibhit Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Damps7604M (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

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the Ld. Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Mumbai, who dismissed 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

DHARAMVEER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

section 271AAC(1) and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 647 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.01.2025 for condonation

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income

WAQF DARGAH RAJJAB SALAR,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Waqf Dargah Rajjab Salar Vs. Ito-1 C/O Kazi Faizur Rehman Bahraich - New C-90, Sector M Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaaaw7179H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

sections 271AAC(1), 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 33 days in filing of the appeal before the NFAC. ITA No.22/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 4. Now, the assessee has approached

RANDHEER SINGH,FAIZABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee for the reason of non- compliance by the Assessee. ITA No.218/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders

KALYAN KUMAR,SANT KABEER NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, BASTI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year:2017-18 Kalyan Kumar V. The Ito Ruihatta, Mehdawal Basti - New Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bmmpk2586A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

sections 271AAC(1), 271F, 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be ITA No.239/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee by the NFAC not condoning the delay

MOHAMMAD AHMAD,BASTI vs. ITO, BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ahamad V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Royal Associates Basti Pancparia Road Gandhi Nagar, Basti Tan/Pan:Awmpa3926F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

sections 270A, 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before 4. the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to NFAC, who estimated the profit margin @4% as against 8% estimated by the AO, by holding that the profit margin of 8% taken by the AO seemed to be on the higher

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None 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 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

272A(1)(d) 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. ITA No.486/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 15 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)_3, Bengaluru, by raising

ASHISH KUMAR,SHRAVASTI vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, 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 31.01.2024, 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 His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay in filing of the appeal before the NFAC. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC

ASHISH KUMAR JAIN,SITAPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar Jain V. The Dcit Prop. M/S Ashish Engineering Works Sitapur Nai Basti, Kotwali Road Mahmudabad, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aispj2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None 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

sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the assessee during first

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

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 of appeal: 1

ALL INDIA MINORITIES WELFARE SOCEITY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 All India Minorities V. The Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemption) 4-A, La Palace, Shahnajaf Lucknow Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aacta4540P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2025, 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