SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the "Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2017- 18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an order made u/s 154 bearing number: ITBA/COM/F/17/2021-22/1038273943(1) dated 30/12/2021 the Ld. AO had held as under

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

250(6) of the Act, which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30th November, 2023, and the assessee proceeded to file second appeal before the tribunal against the said order on 12th December, 2023. 6.3 On seeing the negative outcome of the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee (by way of a precaution) thought

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

250 of the Act issued to the appellant. No compliance has been made by the appellant till date. The details of the opportunities allowed to the appellant to represent in this case are tabulated as under:- DIN No. Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks fixed 1052907737 17.05.2023 01.06.2023 No reply 1056313797 20.09.2023 05.10.2023 No reply

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

250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Page 1 of 12 Sheetal Nath Colonizers ITA No. 1094/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an “assessment order” made u/s 147 r.w.s

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Page 1 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment

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

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 9. We next find that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. It is further observed

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 9. We next find that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. It is further observed

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

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/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

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/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the Page 1 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 Condonation of Delay 2.2 At the outset and at the threshold the Registry

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the Page 1 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 Condonation of Delay 2.2 At the outset and at the threshold the Registry

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condonation of delay (Refer earlier Para). Further, a bare reading of para 4.3 of impugned order clearly demonstrates that the CIT(A) has merely concluded for not interfering with the order of AO and thereby dismissed assessee’s first appeal summarily for non-prosecution but such an order passed by CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate

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

250 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the litigant should not be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the court of law found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh Civil Appeal