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.

condoning the delay in filing Form No. 10B and in the exercise of the powers conferred P a g e | 4 under section

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

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

section 10(23C)(vi), though for the assessment year 2014-15." 6. The decision of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Padmashree Krutarth Acharya Institute of Engg. & Technology v. Chief CIT [2009] 309 ITR 13 (Ori.); merely directed the Chief Commissioner to consider an application for condonation of delay in filing an application. The Division Bench

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

4) of section 245D], the amount of tax on which interest was payable under this sub-section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest is increased, the [Assessing] Officer shall serve on the assessee, a notice of demand in the prescribed

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

4) of section 245D], the amount of tax on which interest was payable under this sub-section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest is increased, the [Assessing] Officer shall serve on the assessee, a notice of demand in the prescribed

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

Section 12A which is an order challengeable before tribunal. There is some merit in the plea of the assessee that it was persuing legal remedy before tribunalunder bonafide belief. So far as condonation of delay in filing appeal with tribunal belatedly is concerned, since the appeal itself is not maintainable before tribunal , we donotpropose to consider the condonation of 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. 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

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” In relation to the aforesaid matter, time limit for filing the appeal against the first appellate order dated 09.09.2021 was due to expire on 08th November, 2021 as per the provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, on 12.11.2021, thereafter, sets were prepared after getting it signed from the authorized representative of the appellant HUF, which

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

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

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

4. The Learned Sr. D.R. on the other hand, opposed the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. After hearing both the sides, we are of the considered view that assessee has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal , and in view of this we in exercise of powers

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

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

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

4. BECAUSE the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle - II, Gorakhpur as also conclusion thereof by the ITO vide assessment order dated 31.10.2019 is wholly vitiated and the same being without jurisdiction, the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated

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

4. Cash gift from wife. As per section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 50000 Provided that monetary gift received by an individual or HUF from relatives will not be charged to tax and spouse falls under the definition of relatives as per the Income Tax Act. 5. Interest on FDR made

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing