MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY,MANDLA ROAD, NEAR SHARDA DEVI MANDIR, RICHAI BAREL vs. LD. CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, ITA No. 46/JAB/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

B) and second proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Exemption) be directed to consider the application and grant the registration under section 80G(5) (iii) of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds

MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXCEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA No. 46/JAB/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

B) and second proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Exemption) be directed to consider the application and grant the registration under section 80G(5) (iii) of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of Ld. 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 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

1,06,00,040/- on account of estimated income of the appellant and the learned CIT Appeals NFAC confirming the addition, without going in to the merits of the case. 8. That the above grounds are independent to each other.” 2. At the time of hearing of appeal none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is noted that

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

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

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

SAFARI SALES AND SERVICES,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SATNA

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) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed original return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2017 showing income of Rs.3,22,120/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30/10/2017 showing income of Rs.3,22,120/-. The Assessing Officer completed

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.

section 148A(b). 3. On the fact and 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 and sufficient cause behind the delay so caused was beyond the control of the appellant

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

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”

3) That the commissioner appeals faceless erred in confirming order of CIT(exemption) u/s 119(2) dated 11.09.2020 denying condonation of delay being more than 365 days as against the due date of 31.10.2018, whereas it was claimed that delay be computed u/s 139 as per CBDT circular 02/2020 dt 3.1.2020 w.e.f due date being 31 March of every asstt

GIRISH KURARIYA,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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 and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income on 05/12/2017 declaring total income of I.T.A. No.182/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Rs.20,95,110/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay

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

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