JAGVEER SINGH,BANDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, SATNA

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

condoning the delay. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,76,85,400/- in his account

SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by 123 days, and Id. CIT (A) should have decided the case on merits. 8. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that that the Department received an information that the assessee has deposited cash

SUSHIL KUMAR,NARSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, NARSINGHPUR, NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Kumar Ito, Ward Narsinghpur V. Main Road,Gandhi Ward, Income Tax Officer Ward, Kandeli, Narsinghpur, Mp- Narsinghpur, Mp-487001. 487001. Pan:Awwpk7164R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case it was informed to the Assessing Officer through “Annual Information Returns” (AIR) by the concerned bank that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.13,38,000/- in cash

DHANYA KUMAR JAIN,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhanya Kumar Jain V. Ito Ward-2(1) 2719, Nagpur Road, Garha, Income Tax Office, Annexe Tripuri Chowk, Jabalpur- Building, Nagrath Chowk, 482001. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Awdpj1526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

cash deposited out of sale of agricultural produce. Both the addition made must be deleted. Page 2 of 5 5. The appellant reserves the right to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. It is reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 360 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Upon noticing that the assessee had not filed the return but deposited cash

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Upon noticing that the assessee had not filed the return but deposited cash

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Upon noticing that the assessee had not filed the return but deposited cash

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Upon noticing that the assessee had not filed the return but deposited cash

JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH BAGRI,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD , , SATNA

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

cash deposits in bank account investment/trading in commodities. used for 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below ought to have accepted the explanation regarding savings from agricultural sources considering the extent of agricultural holdings and savings from agricultural income earned by the family of the appellant. 4. On the facts

NAGENDRA SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(5) , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nagendra Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ward - 2(5), Gwalior Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Ctops 5067G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mahesh Agarwal, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2022

condoning the delay, the hearing in the matter was proceeded with. 3. The only issue raised in appeal is qua an addition for Rs. 12,01,500 in assessment on account of unexplained cash deposits

NITESH KUMAR JAIN,BINA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalenitesh Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, Link Road, Gali No.1, Bina (M.P) Achwat Ward, Bina, Distt.- Sagar-470113. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpj1655J Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

cash deposits beyond the gross turnover amounting to Rs.7,94,006/- ,therefore, added the same under the head “income from other source” of the assessee. The AO further observed credit entries in the bank account in excess of the gross turnover amounting to Rs.4,33,144/- and also made addition for the same. The AO also observed interest

RAHMAN SHAH,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rahman Shah, H. No. 817, Vs. The Ito, Lakhanwarda Ghasanvada Bsrahira Ward-Chhindwara, M.P. Seja, Amarwada, Chhindwara, M.P. Pan:Ggkps4130P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Wherein The Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito-Ward 1, Chhindwara Under Section 144 Of The Act Dated 30.10.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. That The Learned Ao As Well As Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case Making Ex Party Order. The Assessee Did Not Received Any Communication Regarding The Hearing Of The Appeal. The Assessee Is Denied Opportunity Of Hearing. The Order Should Be Set-Aside. 2. The Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Is Illegal Unjustified. It Is Fully Covered But The Withdrawals From The Same Bank Account. The Addition Should Be Deleted In Toto. 3. The Assessee Is An Agriculturist & Advised Not Liable To Income Tax. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Should Be Quashed In Toto.

cash deposits in his bank account were sourced from his earlier withdrawals. Since the assessee was not consistent with his claims, the learned CIT (A) held that since the submissions made by the assessee in the grounds of appeal were not backed by any supporting documents, the said money was to be assessed in his hands under section

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the case admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that in all the three assessment years, the assessee did not furnish a return of income. As per the information received by the ld. AO in the F.Y. 2012-13, the assessee received a commission of Rs.53

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the case admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that in all the three assessment years, the assessee did not furnish a return of income. As per the information received by the ld. AO in the F.Y. 2012-13, the assessee received a commission of Rs.53

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delays in filing of appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 are condoned; and the appeals are admitted for hearing. (C) In appeal vide I.T.A. No.129/JAB/2024, facts of the case, briefly, are that assessment order dated 05.12.2017 was passed u/s 147144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.10

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delays in filing of appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 are condoned; and the appeals are admitted for hearing. (C) In appeal vide I.T.A. No.129/JAB/2024, facts of the case, briefly, are that assessment order dated 05.12.2017 was passed u/s 147144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.10

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delays in filing of appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 are condoned; and the appeals are admitted for hearing. (C) In appeal vide I.T.A. No.129/JAB/2024, facts of the case, briefly, are that assessment order dated 05.12.2017 was passed u/s 147144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.10

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delays in filing of appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 are condoned; and the appeals are admitted for hearing. (C) In appeal vide I.T.A. No.129/JAB/2024, facts of the case, briefly, are that assessment order dated 05.12.2017 was passed u/s 147144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.10