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

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 249(4)(b) and wrongly dismissed as ‘non- admitted’ whereas the factual position of assessee’s case is such that no advance tax or self-assessment tax was payable by assessee. That, the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and it is only on 12.12.2024 when the assessee received a speed-post containing

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on the basis of information available in Annual Information Return (AIR) revealing that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 75,52,500/- in SB A/c No. 076601501323 with ICICI Bank, Rajgarh during the financial year 2013- 14 relevant

MANOJ KUMAR MOTWANI,BETUL MP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

condone small delay of 9 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on receipt of information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 24,65,550/- in Bank A/c during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 under consideration, issued notice dated

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

condone delay.” Page 4 of 9 ITANo.549/Ind/2023 Vijay Kumar Parekh 4.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has stated that no cause of delay is forthcoming from narration that no speaking order was received by the assesse and was unaware of this order. Further the CIT(A) has given reason that no document has been submitted which can explain such a long

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

SARYU DEVI TIWARI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaryu Devi Tiwari Ito-5(3) House No.89, Near Durga Dham Bhopal Mandir, Ashoka Vihar, Ashoka Vs. Garden Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Arhpt0228M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .05.2024

condonation of delay not filed. 3.1In response to deficiency letter issued to appellant on 12.02.2021, the appellant failed to file any response. 3.2 Further, various notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant on 16.03.2021, 15.12.2021, 03.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 under section 250 of the Act vide which the appellant was requested to furnish reply

MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

b) As per section 249(2) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall present its appeal within 30 days of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment. The section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the first appellate authority to admit the appeal after the expiry of limitation of time for filing the appeal

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence of any application

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

249(2)/249(3). In this case, there is no explanation for the delay nor is there any request for condonation of such delay. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed in limini.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and in absence of any application

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

b) of the Income tax\nAct, 1961 for representing the case. However, in response\nthe assessee did not furnish any reply. In view of the\nnoncompliance to the notice issued on the part of the\nassessee, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on\nthe information available with the Department, passed\nOrder under section 148A(d) of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

B Apollo Tower, बनाम/ 2 M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABMPC4980E Assessee by S/Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.04. 2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee before this Tribunal

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

b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately.” 2.8 That additionally the Ld. A.O has obsrved that “ A show- cause notice u/s 144 dated 24.03.2022 has been issued to the assessee fixing the date of compliance on 25.03.2022. However, the assessee has not filed any response to show-cause notice u/s 144. In view of natural justice

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

KAILASH CHANDRA PATIDAR,SHAJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

b) of the Act in the form of show cause notice was issued to the assessee whereby hearing was fixed for 20.11.2017 however on said date too nobody appeared nor any reply was filed on record. That thereafter once again a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued for 23.11.2017 when on said date no body appeared