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

10(23C)(vi) for financial year 2017-18 is clearly an belated application . There is no provision in the 1961 Act empowering ld. CIT(E) to condone the delay. The power to condone the delay vests with CBDT by virtue of provisions of Section

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

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)

condone 29 days delay in filing this appeal with tribunal belatedly by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act.I , now, proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee did not file return of income with the Revenue for impugned assessment year. Notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2019 was issued by AO, which

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

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 appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. Because of the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,07,517/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of turnover of Rs. 18,97,16,297/- as erroneously estimated

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

condone the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal late beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act , and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. It is well settled that if technicalities are pitted against justice, Courts will lean towards advancement of justice, unless malafide is at writ large

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)

condone the delay in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merit in accordance with law. 4. The brief facts of the case are that as per the database of the Department, the assessee has deposited cash in his savings bank account

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 in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal:- “1. BECAUSE the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act initiated by the "Income Tax Officer, Ward—3(1), Azamgarh" with the issuance of notice under section 148, dated 31.03.2017, against the "appellant" is void-ab-initio as the jurisdiction

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

condone the delay in filing these two appeals. 4. The assessee has raised the common grounds:- "1. Because the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 without allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and hence suffers from natural justice. 2. Because the learned

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

condone the delay in filing these two appeals. 4. The assessee has raised the common grounds:- "1. Because the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 without allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and hence suffers from natural justice. 2. Because the learned

SMT. ANITA AWASTHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Anita Awasthi, Ito, Ward-3(5), 1142, Block-36, V. Income Tax Office, Sonebhadra, Rangoli Gardens, Uttar Pradesh Kanakpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 Pan:Acbpa9520E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the assesses appellant has suffered Injustice and has come before your goodself by way of appeal and requests for relief after considering the case of the appellant sympathetically, The appellant begs to submit as under: i. No notice u/s 142(1) could be served upon the appellant

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. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed cross objection in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). :-2-: 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing of the cross objection. As per the application for condonation of delay, supported by the Medical Certificate of Dr. J. P. Shukla of Sharda

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.

condone the delay and admit the appeal and heard. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because, appellate order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts and liable to be canceled. 2. Because, learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified to make addition on amount Rs.2227054/- treating dimmed Income