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

condone the delay of 560 days particularly so incorrect facts are on record. 3.3 The Ld. AR has also additionally submitted that in respect of the “impugned assessment order” (quantum) dated 28.12.2019 (Assessment Year 2017-18) no first appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Section 270A

VISHAL JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani\Nand\Nshri Paresh M. Joshi\Nita No.339/Ind/2025\N Assessment Year:2017-18\Nvishal Jain\Nito 4(4)\N27, Vindhyanchal Nagar,\Nindore\Nairport Road,\Nindore\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aewpj8448P\Nassessee By Shri Prabhpreet Singh Sheetal, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N22.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N23.09.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 10.08.2023 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed By Learned\Nito-4(4), Indore [“Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act"] For\Nassessment-Year [“Ay"] 2017-18, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal On The\Ngrounds Mentioned In Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).\N2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 549\Ndays & Therefore Time-Barred. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The\Nassessee Has Filed A Condonation-Application Supported By An Affidavit. The\Naffidavit Filed By Assessee Is Scanned & Re-Produced Below:\N\Nएक सौ रुपये\Nrs.100\None\Nhundred Rupees\Nnotarial\Nvijay Dewangio\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/08/2008\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/8/2018\Nnotarial\Noff\Nof India\Npradesh\Nnoted Registered\Nserial No. 10792\Ndate..

condoned the delay after finding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, prioritizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The matter was then remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "271AAC(1)", "270A

MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

condonation of delay on merits and then decide the appeal.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "147", "144/144B", "148", "142(1)", "246A", "270A

SHRI AVINASH BANSAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the first appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144B", "270A

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documents / supporting evidence in support of the delay not being filed before Ld. CIT(A) within stipulated timelines. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Further, since there has been consistent non-compliance

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHHAPIHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documents / supporting evidence in support of the delay not being filed before Ld. CIT(A) within stipulated timelines. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Further, since there has been consistent non-compliance

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documents / supporting evidence in support of the delay not being filed before Ld. CIT(A) within stipulated timelines. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Further, since there has been consistent non-compliance

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken up for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 5 Vineet shrivastava Page 3 of 5 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Ito, Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

section 80P of the IT Act and eligibility of each deduction alongwith supporting evidences. In response to this notice, assessee has not submitted any reply/details. Thereafter, various reminder notices and Notices u/s 142(1) issued on 11.01.2021, 29.01.2021, 09.02.2021, 16.02.2021, 18.03.2021 and 27.04.2021. Since, the assessee did not file any reply, a notice dated 05.04.2021 issued by NaFAC, Delhi

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

condoned the delay of filing of form 10B vide his order dated\n06.08.2024. Therefore, in our considered opinion, on this issue there\nshould not be any denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However,\nwith regards to delay in filing of ROI, section 12A(1)(ba) of the\nAct stipulates that to claim exemption

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, we reject condonation request of assessee and consequently this appeal filed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Indore Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

270A(2) of the I. T. Act for under-reporting of income. Further, out of Rs. 54,43,636/- claimed by assessee, CPC has already disallowed a sum of Rs. 17,150/- while processing the ITR u/s 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, disallowable deduction is restricted to Rs. 54,26,486/- (Addition of Rs. 54,26,486/-)” (ii) Subsequently