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

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Act passed by the Ld. Jt. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2023-24 on 26.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.3,46,60,130/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) on 27.05.2024 at the same

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

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

250 dated 20.06.2024. Due to lack of technical knowledge and new portal interface, the submission was mistakenly uploaded under a different assessment year. This is a bona fide error and not an act of non-cooperation. A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh Jat 2. Prayer Based on Identical Matter for AY 2014-15-Consistency of Approach It is most humbly submitted that

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

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

250 dated 20.06.2024. Due to lack of technical knowledge and new portal interface, the submission was mistakenly uploaded under a different assessment year. This is a bona fide error and not an act of non-cooperation. A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh Jat 2. Prayer Based on Identical Matter for AY 2014-15-Consistency of Approach It is most humbly submitted that

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

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

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

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)" for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under 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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO, NEAC dated 21.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing exparte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the response

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

250 on 05.03.2024 for A.Y.2013-14 by CIT(A), Abad\ndismissing the appeal for late filing by 105 days and not taking into consideration\nthe circumstances of death of the main partner of the firm, who manages all\nonline work with email ID and Password and other partners were not aware of\nthe online working also email id and password

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income tax Act 1961. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the decision of the CIT(A) in denial of relief of foreign Tax Credit as the Form.No.67 was not filed before due date of filling of return of income U/sec139(1) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing

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

PRAGYA SAVITA,JABALPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1) ,JABALPUR , JABALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur Pan:Axyps7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.10.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Dated 17.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Nafc Was Wrong In Law For Not Allowing The Deduction For Payment Of Rs. 56,39,017/- Under Section 36(1)(Vi) On Account Of Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic Amount. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic On Or Before Due Date For Furnishing Return Of Income Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 139 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Employer Is Entitled For Deduction. 2. That The Both Employee Contribution Epf Rs.49,38,777/- & Esic Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-Which Has Been Deposited With A Small Delay Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Covid-19. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Before Filing Of The Return.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.10.2023, dismissing the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) dated 17.12.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT (A) NAFC was wrong in law for not allowing the deduction for payment

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

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under 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

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

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

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

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under 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

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