URMILA JAIN,SANWER vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 25.08.2022, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That on the facts of the case Ld. AO and CIT(A), NFAC

URMILA JAIN ,SANWER vs. THE ITO, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders, both dated 25.08.2022, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That on the facts of the case Ld. AO and CIT(A), NFAC

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

68,870/- Α.Υ. 2015-16 Income shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act Rs. 2,34,140/- Income shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs. 2,34,140/- u/s 153A of the Act Total income assessed Rs. 2,34,140/- Rohit Darak ITA No. 99 to 104/Ind/2025 A.Ys

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

68,870/- Α.Υ. 2015-16 Income shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act Rs. 2,34,140/- Income shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs. 2,34,140/- u/s 153A of the Act Total income assessed Rs. 2,34,140/- Α.Υ. 2016-17 Income shown in the return filed

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

68,870/- Α.Υ. 2015-16 Income shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act Rs. 2,34,140/- Income shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs. u/s 153A of the Act 2,34,140/- Total income assessed Rs. 2,34,140/- Rohit Darak ITA No. 99 to 104/Ind/2025 A.Ys

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

68,870/- Α.Υ. 2015-16 Income shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act Rs. 2,34,140/- Income shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs. u/s 153A of the Act 2,34,140/- Total income assessed Rs. 2,34,140/- Α.Υ. 2016-17 Income shown in the return filed

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

68,870/- Α.Υ. 2015-16 Income shown in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act Rs. 2,34,140/- Income shown in the return filed in response to notice Rs. u/s 153A of the Act 2,34,140/- Total income assessed Rs. 2,34,140/- Rohit Darak ITA No. 99 to 104/Ind/2025 A.Ys

SUNIL,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

e-mail but the assessee, being a person of small means and unaware of technological aspects, could not access those notices. That, the AO also sent a notice through speed-post but the AO has himself acknowledged in assessment-order that the speed post got returned and could not have been served upon assessee. Therefore, none of the notices came