SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

144B of the Act, total income of the assessee was computed and assessed at Rs.2,14,58,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. NIL on 31.10.2013 electronically. 2.2 In the aforesaid assessment order it is recorded as under:- “It is noticed that the assessee

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Page 5 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 Thus, the period of limitation has been extended upto 28.02.2022 as this period shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further allowed a period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 for institution of proceedings if the limitation

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

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

144B of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” preferred an first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and who by impugned order at para 3.4 has observed and avered as under:- “3.4 During the course of appellate

NETINK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinetink Technologies Dcit/Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Behind Congress Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aaecn4127C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070957892(1) dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

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

condone delay. The explanation offered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence that the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the appellant's control. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act, I am not satisfied that

LAL SAHAB CHOUREY,HOSHANGABAD, M.P. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS/ NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

144B of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.20,82,998/-. The assessee’s Return of Income was Rs.82,998/-. Addition of Rs.20,00,000/- was made. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No: ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1060566699(1) dated 06.02.2024 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT,BHOPAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisociety For Information Nfac, बनाम/ Technology Development, Delhi Vs. S-209 Raksha Tower, Huzur, Bhopal

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1064882037(1) dated 15.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page 1 of 7 Society for Information

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

section 144B was passed by the AO. 6. Thus, it is trite in law that the appellant must show that he was diligent in taking proper steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence. It is for the appellant to explain the reason for the delay and it is not the function of authorities to find the cause

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)

section 144B of the Act on 27.05.2023 by estimating commission income at 5% of the alleged transaction value of ₹13,86,31,900/- and made an addition of ₹69,31,595/- as unexplained income, thereby assessing the total income at ₹69,31,595/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated 22.05.2023 the assessee’s total income was determined/computed at Rs.33,29,641/- in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144B

ADIM JATI SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,HARDA MADHYA PRADESH vs. NFAC, ITO(1) HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Assessment Unit Samiti Mydt, Mohanpur Income Tax Department बनाम/ Harda Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa5193M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025

section 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Page 1 of 11 Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Mydt ITA No. 71/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the receipts from incidental objects amounting to ₹31,90,771/- were not proved to be incidental or ancillary to the main objects and, therefore, could not qualify for exemption. Consequently, the income over expenditure of ₹12,51,765/- was treated as unexplained voluntary contribution and added to the total income

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHHAPIHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the receipts from incidental objects amounting to ₹31,90,771/- were not proved to be incidental or ancillary to the main objects and, therefore, could not qualify for exemption. Consequently, the income over expenditure of ₹12,51,765/- was treated as unexplained voluntary contribution and added to the total income

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the receipts from incidental objects amounting to ₹31,90,771/- were not proved to be incidental or ancillary to the main objects and, therefore, could not qualify for exemption. Consequently, the income over expenditure of ₹12,51,765/- was treated as unexplained voluntary contribution and added to the total income

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

RAMESHCHAND BADLANI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4 (1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2014-15 Rameshchand Badlani Acit 4(1) 43, Ananda Colony Indore बनाम/ Khajrana Road Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aehpb0735J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant

RAJESH JAISWAL,RAMAYAN vs. WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Rajesh Jaiswal, Ito Ward 1(4) Ramayan, Scheme No.54, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abnpj7642K Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Page 1 of 5 Rajesh Jaiswal ITA No. 328/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is belatedly filed after expiry of prescribed period

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Ito, Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

144B is bad in law as no reasonable opportunity was granted. Tin Box Company v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC). 3. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte for alleged non- compliance without adjudicating merits - CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom HC). 4. The authorities failed to appreciate that