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

section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2025) Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated:29/08/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Jabalpur", "summary

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

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

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

250/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 09/05/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of limitation and did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. (D) At the time

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of AIR information according to which the assessee had purchased land. The ld. AO observed that with regard to a sum of Rs.701000/-, the assesseee submitted a written response that

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

YUVIKA ALLOYS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Yuvika Alloys, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1(1), Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan : Aabfy 1482H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajeev Nema, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2022

4 of the impugned order). It is, thus, not understood as to how does the ld. CIT(A), vide para 5 of its order, states of no reason for the delay having been specified by the assessee, constraining him not to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A), in case he entertained any doubt as to the stated reason, ought

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

JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH BAGRI,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD , , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 147 and under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and on facts and against the principles of natural justice. Jitendra Pratap Singh Bagri, Satna. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,57,000/- made by the Assessing

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

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

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

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

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 disclosing total income of Rs.2,30,910/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147/143

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