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

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had made bogus transactions relating to sales and purchases of Rs.63,81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had made bogus transactions relating to sales and purchases of Rs.63,81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case

ANAND BASANTANI,MANDLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDLA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12 Anand Basantani, Mandla V. Income Tax Officer, C/O Gurukripa Rice Industries, Mandla Padav Road, Mp-481661. Aayakar Bhawan, Mandla, Mp-481661. Pan:Arqps8543G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned by following the aforesaid reasons. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Page 3 of 4 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”). The Assessing

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, KATNI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 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 Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 1,18,95,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath