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

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

2. At the time of hearing of appeal none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation for 10 days as reported by the Registry. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. It is stated by the assessee that he was unaware

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

JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

148. However, the ld. AO records that despite issue of various notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) along with a show cause notice, the assessee did not make effective compliance to the queries raised by him. He pointed out that there was information with him that the assessee had received Rs.21,24,000/- as rent on which

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

section 148 the assessee did not have correct advice and therefore could not furnish correct information and explanation of her Page 2 of 3 serious illness besides submission of her medical prescriptions and treatment and hence in lieu of Shree Swamy Samarth Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Appeal Number: ITA No. 237/Mum/2023 decision the condonation of delay

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

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

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.”

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 and facts, void ab initio and without jurisdiction. (2) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when notice issued

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

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “(1) The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and without jurisdiction. (2) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when notice