BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

272A(2), it can be\nsaid that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of\nfee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for\nmaking of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under\nsection 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts\nand circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of\nthe learned

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

272A (2)(e). On a plain reading of the relevant\nprovisions, in our opinion, failure to file the return\nunder section 139(4A) cannot be interpreted to mean that\nincome cannot to be computed in the case of a charitable trust\nunder section 11 of the Act. During the relevant\n assessment years impugned in these appeals, there

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

272A (2)(e). On a plain reading of the relevant provisions, in our opinion, failure to file the return under section 139(4A) cannot be interpreted to mean that income cannot to be computed in the case of a charitable trust under section 11 of the Act. During the relevant assessment years impugned in these appeals, there is no such

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

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

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

e-filing portal in accordance with section 282A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim of non-service of the order and that the explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation

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

e-filing portal in accordance with section 282A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim of non-service of the order and that the explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation

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

e-filing portal in accordance with section 282A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim of non-service of the order and that the explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation

RAVINDRA PATIDAR,RUNJI, GAUTAMPURA vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiravindra Patidar, Nfac, बनाम/ 112/2 Dharamath, Delhi Vs. Runji, Gutampura, Indore (Pan: Begpp5495H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

e-filed on 23.05.2024. Condonation of delay application states that the assessee is an agriculturist and illiterate person. The assessee is not well conversant with the latest technological advancements and was unable to receive the “impugned order” electronically. Upon consultation with present AR the assessee came to know of passing of “impugned order” on or about 15.05.2024. An affidavit

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

condone the delay. The appeal\nis admitted & taken up for hearing.\n3.2\nIt was then submitted by the Ld. AR that Return of\nIncome was not e-filed u/s 139 of the Act. The Ld. AR has placed\non record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to\n173. Basis paper book page 49 it was demonstrated that

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,SEHORE, SEHORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Ito, Ward-5 Collectors Bungalow, Sehore Sindhi Colony, Vs. Sehore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aappr2617B Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 25.09.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee

UJJAIN SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Ujjain Dugdh Sangh (Sah) Dcit/Acit-1(1) Maryadit, Ujjain 1 Dairy Plant, Maxi Road, बनाम/ Naulakha Bid, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaau0051C Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha, Shri Vaibhav Siroliya & Shri V.K. Ladha, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

272A(1)(d) being the penalty order was passed by the DCIT without approval of Jt. Commissioner as envisaged in section 274(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That no proper opportunity was allowed to the appellant to prove his case. 4. The appellant prays to alter, amend, add or delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Heard