THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

condone the delay. The power to condone the delay vests with CBDT by virtue of provisions

ABHISHEK SEWA SANSTHA,CHANDAULI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Us That Relevant Fact & Correct Position Of Law Has Not Been Considered By Ld. Pcit, Therefore Same Are Discussed In Brief.

delay of 244 days and P a g e | 3 therefore, condonation petition for delay in filling

BANKA ATITHI BHAWAN TRUST,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Banka Atithibhawan Trust, Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Banka Atithibhawan, V. (Exemptions), Maya Bazar, Gorakhpur- 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhutikhand, 273001, U.P. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P. Pan:Aaatb8576G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Ashishbansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shriamalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2023

condonation of delay explaining the cause of delay . It is claimed in the said application that Secretary

SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay requesting to condone the delay in filing this appeal with tribunal late beyond

UMESH KUMAR JAISWAL,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Umesh Kumar Jaiswal, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Ramagya Prasad & Sons, Ward-2(4), Kushinagar Jataha Road, Padrauna, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan-Acdpj3729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

delay of seven days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

condonation of delay reproduced as under:- “ CONDONATION OF DELAY” In relation to the aforesaid matter, time

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condonation of delay, with prayers to condone the delay in filing this appeal beyond the time

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. The reasons for filing this appeal delay as stated by the assessee beyond time

DEZIRE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,MAU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), MAU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledezirelife Sciencespvtltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Dr.Mangala Singh, Ward 3(3), Mau Maunath Bhanjan, Uttar Pradesh Sahadatpura, Mau Uttar Pradesh- 275101. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecd1327L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sanjay Dubey.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.K. Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 4. That the tax authorities erred in making the addition by making

BAL KRISHNA CHAUHAN,MAU vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Bal Krishna Chauhan, V. Income Tax Officer, Mohammadabad Gohna Ward-3(1), Azamgarh Mohalla, Jamalpur Mau-276403 Pan-Akrpc5880F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2022

delay of 425 days’ in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

delay in filing the present appeals may be condoned. 2. On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

delay in filing the present appeals may be condoned. 2. On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed

RAMESH CHANDRA JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5), GORAKHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control

GUNJAN RUNGTA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 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 Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

delay being condoned. 5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R. and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone

LATE NAND JEE UPADHYAY L/H SHRI DUSHYANT UPADHYAY,VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2019-20 Late Nand Jee Upadhyay Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax, (Through His L/H Sri Dushyant Central Processing Centre, Upadhyay) Bengaluri. Flat No.102, Surya Mension, Ravindrapuri, Varanasi – 221 005. Pan: Aabpu0287G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 13.08.2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 329 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Seeking Condonation Of The Delay On The Ground That The Assessee Was Attending Certain Domestic Problems Relating To Matrimonial Issues In The Family & Subsequently, The Assessee Also Died. Hence The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Subsequently, The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal With A Delay On Noticing Outstanding Demand.

delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The only issue urged in this

DHRUV NARAIN SINGH,,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (3),, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dhruv Narain Singh, Vs Income-Tax Officer, Bela, Pipraich, Ward – 1(3), Gorakhpur. Gorakhpur. Pan: Aoxpd7241P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 18-12-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Gorakhpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 117 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. It Is Stated That The Appeal Papers Could Not Be Prepared In Time Due To Inadvertence At The End Of His Tax Consultants. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of Ld Cit(A) Rendered On The Following Issues:- (A) Adhoc Disallowance Made From Expenses Claimed On Hiring Of Generator. (B) Addition Of Rs.1,14,100/- Towards Unexplained Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. (C) Addition Of Rs.1,12,166/- Towards Deposits Received By Way Of Transfers. (D) Addition Towards Marriage Expenses Of The Daughter Of The Assessee.

delayed by 117 days. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 02 (04),, BALLIA vs. PREM SHANKAR VERMA,, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer V. Shri Prem Shankar Verma Ward – 02(04) Sripur. Takarsan Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.134/Vns/134] Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Prem Shankar Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Sripur. Takarsan Ward – 02(04) Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

delay of 14 days in filing of the cross objection. As per the application for condonation of delay

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerakesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bakharipur, Ward 3(5), Mohammadabad, Ghazipur District- Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Axhpg7724R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri O.P. Shukla & Shri Ashutosh Barnwal, Advocates.Ar Respondent By : Shri A.K. Singh. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Rakesh Kumar Gupta 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Was Suffering From Cancer & Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Details Of Medical Diagnosis To Substantiate The Reasonable Cause For Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Considered The Facts Mentioned In The Condo Nation Application & Supporting The Evidences & Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Reasonable Cause For The Delay & The Ld. Dr Has No Serious Objections. Accordingly,We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal & Heard.

condonation of delay along with details of medical diagnosis to substantiate the reasonable cause for delay of 151 days