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)

5) had also been cancelled and required separate appeal. It had also filed another appeal against the subsequent rejection order on 27.01.2025. In the circumstances, the assessee prayed that the 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

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)

5) had also been cancelled and required separate appeal. It had also filed another appeal against the subsequent rejection order on 27.01.2025. In the circumstances, the assessee prayed that the 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

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

4. Aggrieved with the said assessment and penalty orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that there was a huge delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee and the appeal against the order under section 144 had been filed after a delay of 670 days. Similarly

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

4. Aggrieved with the said assessment and penalty orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that there was a huge delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee and the appeal against the order under section 144 had been filed after a delay of 670 days. Similarly

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE ,JABALPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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.4/JAB/2023 for the A.Y.2013-14(Quarter-4) as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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

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)

5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under

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)

5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under

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

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

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the only question which falls for consideration is whether respondent committed an error in passing the order by not condoning the delay in filing Form No10B along with the return filed. In the decision of this Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) this

KAMDHENU SHIKSHA SEWA SAMITI,KATNI vs. CIT-EXCEMPTION, , BHOPAL

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoning delay of applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and clause (iii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act but no such relaxation had been granted to applications which have been filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued

KAMDHENU SHIKSHA SEWA SAMITI,KATNI vs. CIT- EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoning delay of applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and clause (iii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act but no such relaxation had been granted to applications which have been filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued

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

5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34

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

5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34

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

5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34

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

5 That the Addition made at Rs.34,01,925/- considering the filing of Form 10B delayed without considering the notifications issued by CBDT for condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34

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)

section under which the assessment is made was entered as, ‘144’. The assessment order does not make any reference to any notice issued or lack of compliance by the assessee to such notices. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC refused to condone the delay

GOSAL SAGAR HELPING HAND FOUNDATION,JABALPUR vs. CIT EXCEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2024-25 Gosal Sagar Helping Hand Cit Exemption V. Foundation Income Tax Department, C/O Mujahid Ansari & Co., Cit Exemptions, Bhopal Mominpura Street, Gohalpur- (Mp). 482002. Pan:Aagag6146G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 05 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the appeal and accept it for further hearing in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed a letter dated 16.01.2025 seeking withdrawal of this appeal. The relevant contents thereof are reproduced herein for the sake of clarity: - Page 3 of 4 “1. The said appeal

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, by the AO vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed u/s 271B of I.T. Act. The relevant portion

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

4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is undisputed fact that assessee got registration u/s.12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2013 vide order dated 2.9.2014, a copy of such registration certificate is placed in P.B. pg.24. It is also an undisputed fact that assessee in the earlier years