M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of Revenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue, first issue in dispute is assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.2

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of\nRevenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed\nin time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue,\nfirst issue in dispute is assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act\namounting to Rs.2

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

In the result, appeals vide I

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of\nRevenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed\nin time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue,\nfirst issue in dispute is assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act\namounting to Rs.2

GALLANTT FOUNDATION( FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOVIND FOUNDATION),GORAKHPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

33,687/- had been incurred on food distribution, she held that it was not as per the object of the assesse trust and because the activities of the assessee trust were not as per the objects mentioned in the trust deed and the assesse had failed to file supporting evidences with regard to charitable activities, as per the objects

GALLANTT FOUNDATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOVIND FOUNDATION),GORAKHPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

33,687/- had been incurred on food distribution, she held that it was not as per the object of the assesse trust and because the activities of the assessee trust were not as per the objects mentioned in the trust deed and the assesse had failed to file supporting evidences with regard to charitable activities, as per the objects

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

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly allowed

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)

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee, which is considered and rejected, as the ground for seeking adjournment is very vague. Further, the issue raised

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed the submissions. 6. The reasons stated in the application and looking into the delay of 33 days, we hereby condone the delay following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji

M/S. BAL KALYAN SAMITI SARASWATI VIDHYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE,RAMPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.- N.A. M/S Bal Kalyan Samiti, Saraswati Cit (Exemption), Vidhya Mandir Inter College, Near Vs. Lucknow Mandi Samiti, Milak, Rampur, 244921, U.P. Pan:Aacab8257F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(Exemption), Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee Under Section 10(23C)(Vi). The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal at any time.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is late by 33 days. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay was presented by the Manager of the Bal Kalyan Samiti, who is also the authorized signatory for the society

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

delay of 5 days is condoned and admit this appeal for hearing. Page 2 of 23 3. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. At the outset, it is noticed that the issue involved in this appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

33 days which has happened due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee as the delay has happened due to a mistake of staff of the counsel who I.T.A. Nos.185 & 268/Lkw/2017 3 C.O.05/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 forgot to file the appeal and which remained with him along with other bunch of folder. It was submitted that

AJAY KUMAR JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

33 days which has happened due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee as the delay has happened due to a mistake of staff of the counsel who I.T.A. Nos.185 & 268/Lkw/2017 3 C.O.05/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 forgot to file the appeal and which remained with him along with other bunch of folder. It was submitted that

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 4 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which

SHOBHA YADAV,CHANDPURA BACHHANA ,BILHAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , KNP-W

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2025, dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filling of the appeal by 33 days

UMA SHANKAR AWASTHI,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(4), UNNAO

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shanker Awasthi V. Income Tax Officer 2(4) House No.76 Unnao Hiran Nagar, Unnao Tan/Pan:Afypa1750N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

33,678/-. ITA No.773/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 6 3. The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act, separately. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee after admitting additional evidences and considering