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)

section under which the assessment is made was entered as, ‘144’. The assessment order does not make any reference to any notice issued or lack of compliance by the assessee to such notices. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC refused to condone the delay

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section

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

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

SURYA KUMAR GUPTA,ITARSI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1, ITARSI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar Ward-1, Itarsi

section 144. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted. The ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

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

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)

144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section

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)

144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section

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)

144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section

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)

144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

condonation of delay.\nAfter considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), we are of the\nview that the fact that the appeal was delayed, is in itself an indicator to the fact\nthat the remaining partners were not aware of the existence

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.

144 and a final show cause notice, but the assessee did not respond to any of these notices. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer decided to treat this amount of Rs.1,23,97,680/- as unexplained money assessable under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. He also brought the same to tax under section

SAURABH JAIN,SAGAR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE,, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee 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 assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144

URMILA KURARIYA (L/H OF LATE SHRI GANGA PRASAD KURARIYA),JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

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 assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29/03/2016. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s 144 read with section