SARSWATI BAL KALYAN SAMITI,WAIDHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

1 and 2 herein original defendants appellants before the High Court. While condoning the delay, the High Court has observed as under: In these circumstances, when there are certain questions, which require a debate in the second appeal, it is not necessary that this matter be rejected at this stage, without inviting a decision on merits. If the delay

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing Form 10B up to a period of 365 days. The CIT (Appeals), NFAC also took note of a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries reported in 1993 ITR (201) 325 wherein it was held that the filing of the auditor's report along

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

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

section 154 of the Act dated 25-1-2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent is allowed." The issue before us being identical to that as dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court the decision rendered therein will squarely apply to the present case. Following

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

4 1. Rs 1,50,000/- of (whichever is less) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I hereby ampere penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- 271B of IT Act, 1961. The order is being passed after obtaining necessary approval uls 274 of the IT Act, 1961.” (B.2) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed

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)

4. On the other hand, Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) pointed out that the ld. JCIT(A) had passed a speaking order and pointed out that the assessee was not eligible for the concessional rate of tax under section 115BAA, because it had not fulfilled the pre-condition of filing Form

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)

1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly be quashed. 9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals have been filed late and the appeals are accompanied by applications for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee

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)

1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly be quashed. 9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals have been filed late and the appeals are accompanied by applications for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee

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)

delay may kindly be condoned as it was caused due to reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. We have duly considered the matter. As the issue is the grant of approval under section 80G, which emanates out of a common order, it is plausible that the same could lead to a belief that a separate appeal was not necessary. Hence, considering

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)

delay may kindly be condoned as it was caused due to reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. We have duly considered the matter. As the issue is the grant of approval under section 80G, which emanates out of a common order, it is plausible that the same could lead to a belief that a separate appeal was not necessary. Hence, considering

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”, Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 has reiterated the principle for granting condonation of delay by observing as under: - “13. It is very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for condonation

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)

1) dated 27.05.2025. It was for this reason that the appeal of the assessee was delayed and it was prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned. In his petition, the assessee cited several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that sufficient cause was to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

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