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

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

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

148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 is erroneous and bad in law. 3 That the addition confirmed at Rs.18,22,115/- considering 8% of the gross receipt at Rs.2,27,76,440/- as income without any basis is unjustified. 4 That the NFAC Center has added Rs.12,19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been

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

148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 is erroneous and bad in law. 3 That the addition confirmed at Rs.18,22,115/- considering 8% of the gross receipt at Rs.2,27,76,440/- as income without any basis is unjustified. 4 That the NFAC Center has added Rs.12,19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been

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

148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 is erroneous and bad in law. 3 That the addition confirmed at Rs.18,22,115/- considering 8% of the gross receipt at Rs.2,27,76,440/- as income without any basis is unjustified. 4 That the NFAC Center has added Rs.12,19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been

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

148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 is erroneous and bad in law. 3 That the addition confirmed at Rs.18,22,115/- considering 8% of the gross receipt at Rs.2,27,76,440/- as income without any basis is unjustified. 4 That the NFAC Center has added Rs.12,19,810/- deposited in bank for which no specific query has been

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)

148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit 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)

148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit 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)

148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit 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)

148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added the sum of Rs. 4,18,90,600/- as unexplained cash deposit under section

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.

148. The ld. Assessing Officer records in his order, that during the course of assessment, he issued notices under section 142(1), reminder letters, a show cause notice under section 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

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

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

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,KATNI 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

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 I.T.A. No.120/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 Representative for Revenue did not express

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