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

THE SUB-REGISTRAR,KUSHINAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I & CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. - 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Sub-Registrar of properties, was required by the Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Gorakhpur to furnish information regarding the registered sale/purchase deeds under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no information was furnished even after issuance

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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R PER BENCH: This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2. At the outset, ld. AR invited our attention to the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R PER BENCH: This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2. At the outset, ld. AR invited our attention to the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R PER BENCH: This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2. At the outset, ld. AR invited our attention to the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R PER BENCH: This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2. At the outset, ld. AR invited our attention to the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R PER BENCH: This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2. At the outset, ld. AR invited our attention to the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit

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