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

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex\nCourt has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar\ncircumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to\nestablish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished\ninaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause\nnotice the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

251 or the imposition of penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex\nCourt has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar\ncircumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to\nestablish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished\ninaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause\nnotice the Assessing Officer

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex\nCourt has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar\ncircumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to\nestablish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished\ninaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause\nnotice the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

1. That the learned NFAC (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 144 was illegal, void and in breach of principle of natural justice. 1.1 That, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in conferring to the ex-parte order passed in violation of principle

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

condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee has filed notice dated 31st May 2016 of Ld. CIT(A) whereby the assessee was asked to file the appeal electronically latest by 15.06.2016. Para 3 of the said notice reads as under: “3. However, only a paper appeal had het filed by you as mentioned above which

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

condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee has filed notice dated 31st May 2016 of Ld. CIT(A) whereby the assessee was asked to file the appeal electronically latest by 15.06.2016. Para 3 of the said notice reads as under: “3. However, only a paper appeal had het filed by you as mentioned above which

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

Section 246A was filed on 21.09.2023 and total number of delay is 2066 days. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the first appeal as and by way of the \"impugned order” did not condone the delay in filing the first appeal under the Act and dismissed the appeal u/s 249(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee

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

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