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)

35,489 claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed by the AO and also by CPC and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing

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)

section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan Samiti Maryadit requested the assessee to file a condonation petition alongwith cogent reasons to explain the said delay. In response

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)

section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan Samiti Maryadit requested the assessee to file a condonation petition alongwith cogent reasons to explain the said delay. In response

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)

section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan Samiti Maryadit requested the assessee to file a condonation petition alongwith cogent reasons to explain the said delay. In response

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)

section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan Samiti Maryadit requested the assessee to file a condonation petition alongwith cogent reasons to explain the said delay. In response

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

35,685/- and Silver of Rs.13,80,784/- was found in excess, as compared to the books of accounts. The assessee offered an additional income of Rs. 15,16,430/- on this account. Notices under section 142(1) were issued where the assessee was asked to explain the source of this excess stock worth Rs.15

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

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 144, the assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for delay of her serious illness were not disclosed correctly in from 35 and therefore could not be filed correctly in appeal at Ld. CIT-A in time hence condonation

CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICE ANNUPPUR,ANNUPPUR vs. ITO-TDS-2,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 & 89/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 To 2019-20) Chief Medical & Vs. Ito, Tds-2, Health Office, Room No. 102, Aayakar Amarkant Road, Bhawan, Napier Town, Annuppur-484224, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 84/JAB/2023 for the A.Y.2014-15 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

condonation application), who represented before the revisionary authority, he conveyed the same to the assessee’s old counsel, Shri Anand K. Khemariya, only where-after the assessee contacted Shri Modh on 30.11.2017, i.e., after nearly seven months. The affidavit is deficient on material facts, viz. the reason for the non-communication of change in address, admittedly

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

condonation application), who represented before the revisionary authority, he conveyed the same to the assessee’s old counsel, Shri Anand K. Khemariya, only where-after the assessee contacted Shri Modh on 30.11.2017, i.e., after nearly seven months. The affidavit is deficient on material facts, viz. the reason for the non-communication of change in address, admittedly