“Section 142(1)”

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271F were separately initiated against him. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessment Officer and notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee on four occasions. However, the assessee did not make any compliance to the same. Therefore, a show cause notice

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271F were separately initiated against him. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessment Officer and notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee on four occasions. However, the assessee did not make any compliance to the same. Therefore, a show cause notice

Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sahajpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

since the returns of income that were filed by the assessee were not e-verified by it, the ld. AO issued notice under section 142(1) calling for various details on or before 2.08.2021. While the assessee did not make immediate compliance, it filed a submission on 28.08.2021 in which ... bank statement for perusal. After the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessing Officer, the ld. AO records that three more notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but none of A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit them were complied with

Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sahajpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

since the returns of income that were filed by the assessee were not e-verified by it, the ld. AO issued notice under section 142(1) calling for various details on or before 2.08.2021. While the assessee did not make immediate compliance, it filed a submission on 28.08.2021 in which ... bank statement for perusal. After the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessing Officer, the ld. AO records that three more notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but none of A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit them were complied with

Aapka Faisla Gold Palace, Shahdol vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Apka Faisala Gold Palace V. Acit-Central Circle Gandhi Chowk Shahdol, 291 Ramnath Building, Madhya Pradesh-484001. Napier Town, Jabalpur- 482001. Tan/Pan:Aarfa8456D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ad Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Pawan Sthapak, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

without appreciating that the assessing officer erred in making the reference to DVO before issuing the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and without bringing any material on record and thus reference to DVO without complying with the basic step of section 142A of the Act which impose ... Rs.1,87,70,395 without appreciating that the assessing officer erred in making the reference to DVO before issuing the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and without bringing any material on record and thus reference to DVO without complying with the basic step of section 142A

Pawan Sthapak, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

without appreciating that the assessing officer erred in making the reference to DVO before issuing the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and without bringing any material on record and thus reference to DVO without complying with the basic step of section 142A of the Act which impose ... Rs.1,87,70,395 without appreciating that the assessing officer erred in making the reference to DVO before issuing the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and without bringing any material on record and thus reference to DVO without complying with the basic step of section 142A

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

show cause notice to the assessee asking why penalty should not be levied upon him, for failure to make compliance to notices under section 142(1) dated 28.09.2019, 10.12.2019, 3.02.2020, 21.12.2020 and 2.09.2020. The assessee did not make any compliance to the said show cause notice. Therefore ... proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the assessee, for non-compliance of these five notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment and penalty orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

show cause notice to the assessee asking why penalty should not be levied upon him, for failure to make compliance to notices under section 142(1) dated 28.09.2019, 10.12.2019, 3.02.2020, 21.12.2020 and 2.09.2020. The assessee did not make any compliance to the said show cause notice. Therefore ... proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the assessee, for non-compliance of these five notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment and penalty orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

Gajendra Kumar, Mahoba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2)(4 ), Banda

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the ld. AO issued a notice 2 Gajendra Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 under section 142(1) asking the assessee to file a return of income. However, it appears that no return was filed in response to this notice. Therefore

Sankar Lal Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. ITO- 1(5), Allahabad

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the assessee was issued and served with a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said notice was not complied with. Therefore, the ld. AO issued a further notice to the assessee, asking

Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(5), Banda

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Avas Vikash Colony Head Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Post-Banda 210001, U.P. Pan:Agrpt7458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mamta Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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 28.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Passed On 22.12.2019, Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because The Appellant Authority Has Failed To Provide Fair, Real & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard, In The Form-35 Petitioner Clearly Mentioned That Notices/Communication May Not Be Send On Email Mode. In This Case No Notice For Hearing Has Been Issued In Physical Mode. B. Because The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Commissioner (Appeals) Has Passed The Order Based On Incorrect Appreciation Of Facts, Leading To An Erroneous Conclusion. C. Because Assessment Order As Well As Order-In-Appeal Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Manner Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. D. Because The Findings Recorded In The Impugned Order Are Contrary To The Material Evidence Available On Record, Resulting In A Flawed Assessment. E. Because Appellant Was Not Aware About The Issuance Of Notices At The Proceedings Stage Because He Got Registered Himself After Order Passed By The Assessing Officer.

bank account with Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Badausa. Since he had not filed a return of income, a notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and the assessee was thereafter asked to submit details with regard to this deposit. The ld. AO records that no response

Deputy Commiossioner of Incometax, Jamnagar vs. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed on Paper Book (PB) Page no.10. In response to this notice, the assessee submitted all the documents and evidences, vide assessee