GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

income-tax portal and email id at regular\nintervals and thereby not becoming aware of impugned orders. Further, the\nprevious counsel has also confirmed that during the course of periodic\nreview of pending work of his clients conducted in his office in the month of\nDecember, 2024, the lapse came to his notice. Ld. AR submitted that the\ndelay

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

income at\nRs.2,95,550/-. The appellant is a builder and developer and engaged in the business of\nreal estate. The A.O. has made additions in the assessment order as under:\nPage 1 of 4\n* Gopal (M.P.)\nΕ1942173602IN\nCI Builders (P) Ltd.\n182 Zone-1, M.P Nagar, Bhopal\nRECEIVED\n13/217\n3.15pm\nOn\nTime\nSign\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

addition of Rs.2,77,34,160 to the total income of assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in completing the assessment best of his judgment” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse is Cooperative Society and filed

RADHA MAHESHWARI,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Maheshwari Ito 4 Bahadurganj, Khidwdkar Dewas Marg Behind Civi Hospital Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azcpm1050B Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .07.2024

Income Tax (Appeal), (National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi for A.Y.2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Hon CIT has dismissed the appeal due to delay in filling the appeal by the assessee and application for condonation of delay has not denied by the Hon CIT. ITANo.517/Ind/2023 Radha Maheshwari 2. Ld AO has made an addition

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, it was explained that additional income

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant is not entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 10 ABDE

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Income Tax Department. Further the “impugned order” is ex-parte without considering the merit of the case. Delay is unintentional. An additional affidavit Page 5 of 10 ARP Securities Ld ITA No.150 & 218/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 dated 20.09.2025 was also placed on record in the support of condonation

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.\n2. The Ld. AO has erred in rejecting the application u/s 154 and the Ld.\nCIT(A) NFAC has erred in maintaining the order.\n3. The Ld. NFAC erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon.\nTribunal in the case of Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College vide ITA no.\n469/IND/2018 wherein

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned. Most respectfully we also place reliance on the judgement of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 2395/2008 in the case case of\nImprovement Trust Ludhiana v. Ujakar Singh & another vide judgment dated\n09/02/2010 in which it is held that unless malafides at large, delay should be\ncondoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on one of the grounds. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it appears that there is a bona fide reason for filing the instant cross objection with a delay of 113 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant cross objection. Likewise, there is delay

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Additional Commissioner of Income tax(IT), Ahmedabad as per section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

addition to the extent of Rs.34,14,004/- has been made to the income of the assessee, no tax-payer would forgo his right of appeal simply by making his appeal time barred and bear a huge tax liability. There is no justifiable reason with the Revenue authorities not to condone the delay

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5.2 Thus due to the reasons of not filing the application for condonation of delay the CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is pertinent to note that CIT(A) has not issued any notice to the assessee much less a show cause notice before dismissing the appeal