AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

penalties emanate from the same assessment order and are its consequences, they are being taken up together with the Assessment for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condon the delay

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty notice under section 271A of the Act was issued to it vide DIN and Letter No. ITBA/PNL/F/17/2025-26 1076484849(1) dated 27.05.2025. It was for this reason that the appeal of the assessee was delayed and it was prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned

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 in one or more accounts of Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission

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 in one or more accounts of Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission

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 in one or more accounts of Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission

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 in one or more accounts of Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission

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

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

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

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

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

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

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

delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. On merits, he submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,67,337/- deposited in bank was assessee’s business turnover; on which element of profit was a small portion of the total amount. He contended that only the profit element in the turnover

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

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

Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit. The penalty on such

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit. The penalty on such

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.

penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. Aggrieved by this order dated 23.03.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC on 24.08.2023 along with a condonation petition to explain the delay

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty

SHRI SADGURU MAHILA BAHUODESHIYA SAMITI MARYADIT JANKIKUND CHITRAKOOT,CHITRAKOOT, SATNA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment u/s 144 of the Act was completed on 30/11/2019 and penalty

RAM LAKHAN DWIVEDI,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 Ram Lakhan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer 139, Rohaniya Khurd, Pakaria, Ward-1, Satna Distt-Maihar-485773. Income Tax Office, Civil Lines Chowk, Satna- 485001. Pan:Exmpd6359C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided the case on merits. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order under sec. 147 read with sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21/03/2024 determining the total income at Rs. 7,24,417/is unjustified, arbitrary, ab initio void, without jurisdiction and against

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

penalty notice on 12.09.2024 through his new counsel and also prepared and filed the present appeal. It was prayed that since the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, it was approaching this Tribunal to condone the delay

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

penalty proceedings under sec. 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of the authorities below are contrary to facts and law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify