SPARSH ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS & CONSULTANTS,REWA vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, REWA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act only on technical ground that audit report in Form No. 10B was not filed Sparsh

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)

condone delay in filing of appeal of only one day and without issuing any notice of hearing under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) under sec. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 26/07/2024 is contrary

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh order, ensuring an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adherence to Section 250

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 250. We also observe that the delay of 145 days does not fall in the category of inordinate delay, when we consider the circumstances cited by the assessee. It is quite plausible that the assessee was not kept informed by his counsel about the status of proceedings and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not in our opinion justified

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

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 filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 27/03/2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,700/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return and passed assessment order

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KATNI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, KATNI

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, filed his return of income on 27/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,80,360/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 20/11/2019

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeals against the orders of the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the ld. AO for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The grounds of appeal in the said appeals are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeals against the orders of the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the ld. AO for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The grounds of appeal in the said appeals are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO, Ward, Seoni under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2014. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing ex-parte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented

SHRI NAMIYUN PARSWANATH JAIN, SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the commissioner Appeals faceless erred in not condoning the delay in filling 10B audit report up loaded belatedly by C.A. on 26.02.2020, whereas it was signed by C.A. on 20.06.2018 and the assesse dully added C. A for up loading Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber

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 of the Act and passed

PRABHAT SUPA,CHHATARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHHATARPUR

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.138/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

DAYA RAM YADAV,MANDLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JABALPUR, 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 and has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31/03/2018 disclosing income of Rs.3,08,700/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

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

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 filed his return of income for the year under consideration disclosing income of Rs.7,09,360/- which got invalidated. The assessee neither filed return of income against notice

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.

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 and 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

SHREE JEE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXCEMPTION, JABALPUR

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 filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27/03/2019 declaring total income at nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143 read with sections

UTTAM KRISHNANI,REWA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. In view of section 250

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

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

section 250 on 20.06.2024, had been mistakenly uploaded under a different assessment year. It was submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeals only after receiving communications with relation to another matter. He tried filing the appeal on 31.05.2025, but due to his portal related issues, he was unable to file the same