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

250 dated 21.06.2024 specifically pointing out this discrepancy of delay in filing appeal has not been complied with by the appellant. The query raised vide notice dated 21.06.2024 is as follows:- "On perusal of the appeal memo, it is noticed that in your case assessment order was passed on 24.03.2022 and appeal was filed on 18.10.2023. Thus, it is evident

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

250 dated 21.06.2024 specifically pointing out this discrepancy of delay in filing appeal has not been complied with by the appellant. The query raised vide notice dated 21.06.2024 is as follows:- "On perusal of the appeal memo, it is noticed that in your case assessment order was passed on 24.03.2022 and appeal was filed on 18.10.2023. Thus, it is evident

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

PRABHA TRIPATHI L/R OF LATE RAGHAV RAM TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(4), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

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

condone the delays and remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with section 250(6

KAILASH BAND,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kailash Band, Nfac/Ito, 01,Balgara, 1(1), बनाम/ Sanwer, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bxtpk4018B Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024

condone delay and admit this appeal. At the same time, we also find that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing appeal of assessee for non-prosecution but without adjudicating assessee’s grounds as per mandate of section 250(6

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

250 of the Act on 24.12.2020 was issued to the assessee for furnishing its submissions. The ld.NFAC by its impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on the point of limitation, as follows: “4.3 In the instant case, the reason given by the appellant is that the appellant was unaware of the fact that there was certain adjustment

ASHISH GOYAL HUF,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER , NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

condone delay, admit appeals and proceed with hearing. 3. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order

ASHISH GOYAL HUF,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

condone delay, admit appeals and proceed with hearing. 3. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order

SHRI CHATURLAL GOND,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1, ITARSI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chatur Lal Gond, Ito-1, 72, Balajee Niwas

condone delay and proceed with appeal. 5. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner

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

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

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

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal. 9. We further note that the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Such disposal is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal. 9. We further note that the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Such disposal is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6

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

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

6 of 10 ARP Securities Ld ITA No.150 & 218/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 remained non complaint even in the first appeal but the delay was condoned by Ld. CIT(A) but there was no representation at all by the assessee company at the first appellate stage also. Hence delay if any be condoned with cost. Further the assessee company be directed

KHILLA COLONIERS P LTD ,BHOPALC/O0 vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Khilla Colonizers P.Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ Bhopal Circle 2(1), Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadck7900R Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

condone delay and proceed with appeal. 4. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner