NAGENDRA PRATAP SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nagendra Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S. Prem Kanta Indane, Itd, Singrauli-486788 Old Dudhichua Road, Singrauli- 486788. Tan/Pan:Asaps8528D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Cit(Dr-1) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay of 10 days and admit the appeal for deciding the same on the basis of materials available on record. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner of a firm namely M/s. B. Agrawal & Co, having its office at shown Sonebhadra (U.P). The assessee had filed his return of income

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

SAFARI SALES AND SERVICES,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SATNA

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "69A", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,REWA vs. ITO- WARD-1, REWA

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has I.T.A. No.160/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. is condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. is condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh

SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,67,705/- by making addition of Rs.28,88,755/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order

NAFEES ALI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee's application for condonation

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and orders passed dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee against penalties levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and orders passed dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee against penalties levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and orders passed dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee against penalties levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and orders passed dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee against penalties levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved

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

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 147

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