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

PRATHMIK KRSHI SHAK SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT KHATEDAKALA,KHATEDAKALA vs. CIT, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani\Nand\Nshri Paresh M. Joshi\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024\N Assessment Year:2018-19\Nprathmik Krshi Shak\Nnfac\Nsahkari Sanstha Maryadit,\Ndelhi\Nkhatedakala,\Nsarra, Distt-Sarra,\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\Nbetul\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aacap7241F\Nassessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 24.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 17.03.2023 Passed By Learned\Nassessment Unit Of Income-Tax Department [“Ao”] U/S 147 R.W.S.144 &\N144B Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2018-19,\Nthe Assessee Has Filed This Appeal On The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal\Nmemo (Form No. 36).\Nprathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala\Nita No. 702/Ind/2024 - Ay 2018-19\N2. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On\N16.04.2024 But The Same Came To The Knowledge Of Assessee On 17.07.2024\Nand Therefore The Assessee Has Mentioned The \"Date Of Service\" As\N“17.07.2024\" In Form No.

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a 'sufficient cause' due to the non-receipt of notices and the order. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity for proper representation.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B

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

KUNAL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay of 193 days in filing the first appeal, acknowledging the assessee's cogent reasons. The Tribunal also agreed with the consensus of both parties to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,GUMASTA NAGAR, INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay, without a condonation application. The CIT(A)'s order arose from an assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144B

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

condone delay. The explanation\noffered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence\nbeyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence\nthat the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the\nappellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act,\nI am not satisfied that

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. DCIT - 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering it unintentional and not deliberate, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the disallowance of deduction.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "57", "143(3)", "144B

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal found the \"impugned order\" to be not meritorious and set it aside. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "250", "147", "144", "144B

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

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are as under:\n(i)\nThe AO, on the basis of information of certain financial transactions\nhaving been done by assessee in the previous year 2011-12 relevant

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,KHANDWA vs. ITO, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee's prolonged medical condition and surgeries. The Tribunal also remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all evidence.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B

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

KALA JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

delay. Accordingly we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal. Appeal taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted before this tribunal that the\nassessee is in the business of grocery/grocery store at\nMarothiya Bazar, Indore which is run in the name and style of\nM/s Roopchand Kishanlal Kirana Merchant. The assessee's\nsource of income is from

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

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order on merits.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": ["253", "147", "144", "144B

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