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

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used under section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961 such as sections 273, 274 etc. The expression “’sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

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

B-143, Sant Asaram Nagar, Phase-1, Baghmugaliya, Delhi Vs. (Respondent/ Revenue) Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) PAN: BCJPK2848G Assessee by Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2024 ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 07.02.2024 of the Commissioner

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

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

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

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

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

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

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

b) This case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- in its bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the year. It is further seen that the assessee has not filed his return of 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

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