M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee’s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC). Relying upon these decisions, Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee’s prayer with following contentions: (i) It is submitted that there is a delay of as many as 2,425 days which is highly inordinate. The law mandates filing of appeal within a prescribed

RADHESHYAM,VILLAGE SEVDA , ASHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 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/250/2023- 24/1059089386(1) dated 27.12.2023 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

SHIVNARAYAN RAJPUT,HOSHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ITARSI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivnarayan Rajput, Ito, Ward-1, बनाम/ House No.33

251 where it clearly provides that the Ld. CIT (A) has to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case by examining, verifying and analyzing the material on record. Since there is no meritorious finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) thus the ex-parte order passed without giving opportunity of being heard is illegal

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

Section 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

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

Section 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

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of justice. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, regularly assessed to tax at Nashik, and had filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009–10. The assessment was completed

SHRIRAM NANDA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE BHOPAL, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishriram Nanda Education & Acit, Welfare Society, Exemption Circle, Vs. Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaajs1707L Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar,Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2024 O R D E R

delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal, accordingly the same is condoned. 4. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That, without prejudice

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as filed within limitation. 5. In the case of assessee the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where in similar < circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished