RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order Rajesh Kumar Rathore 6 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 dated 25.09.2023, which was admittedly appealable up to 23.10.2023. The delay has been attributed to the appellant's lack of education and unawareness of the reassessment

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

condoning the delay in filing of appeal and consequently, also erred in not admitting such appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case. ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of reassessment

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act the assesee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.61,87,661/- . Additions were made to his returned income of Rs.9,96,870/-. That aforesaid

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to factors beyond the control of appellant. The Appellant prays that the impugned order rejecting the appeal being unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for be directed to be quashed and appeal being remanded back to CIT(A) for hearing on merits. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 dated 24.03.2022 is void and illegal hence liable to quashed. 7. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and OR withdraw any OR all the above grounds

ANWAR KHAN ,SEHORE vs. I T O , SEHORE

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed Belatedly.

reassessment order is invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation illegal and liable to be quashed. (Tax effect :35,18,700/-) 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in passing the ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. ( Tax effect 35,18,700/- 3.That the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

delay in filing appeal is reproduced as under”:- "The Appellant is a person with meagre resources and is not aware of the legal jargons. When the proceedings were originally initiated and closed, he was under the genuine belief that the proceedings have been over and was not aware of the reassessment proceedings initiated in his case. It was only when

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

condoned and the appeal of the assessee be decided on merits. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal have not shown a sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee cannot take an excuse of not using the e-mail ID when it is mandatory

VIRENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings were time-barred and hence void ab initio. It was further contended that the addition of ₹69,31,595/- was contrary to the evidence on record, arbitrary and unjustified, and had been made merely on assumptions, conjectures and surmises. The assessee I.TA No. 254/IND/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 4 Virendra Kumar Namdev Vs. CIT(A) specifically pleaded that

SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the assesee’s total income was computed at Rs.61,52,020/-. Additions were made to the return of income. That the assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- Page 3 of 9 Sanjay Kumar Bomb

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return to department u/s 139 or even in response to notice u/s 148 because the assessee

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return to department u/s 139 or even in response to notice u/s 148 because the assessee

ACIT1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted

THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted

ACIT 1( 1 ), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted

ACIT(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time limits stated in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by its directions. 3. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Ld. DR submitted