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)

5. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav “1. That 1 That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condone the delay in filing the appeal

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)

section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrarily misconceived, fallacious and illegal which must be quashed with directions to grant the as sought.” 2. It is observed that ITA No.46/JAB/2025 is delayed by 261days. A condonation

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)

section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrarily misconceived, fallacious and illegal which must be quashed with directions to grant the as sought.” 2. It is observed that ITA No.46/JAB/2025 is delayed by 261days. A condonation

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

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

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)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act without appreciating that appellant have duly filed reply on 08.02.2024 in response to letter dated 25.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 and it appears that order

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)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act without appreciating that appellant have duly filed reply on 08.02.2024 in response to letter dated 25.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 and it appears that order

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 No.10B along with the return filed. In the decision of this Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income

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

5 Thus, provisions of section 2738 provides that no penalty shall be imposable on person or assessee, as case may be, referred to in said provisions, if it proves that there is a reasonable cause for said failure. Since the provisions of section 273B covers the provisions of section 271B, if assessee or person explains reasons for not getting

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)

delay petition that had been filed. 7. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. While the order of the ld. AO is extremely cryptic, perusal of the condonation petition filed by the assessee shows that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under section 143(2

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

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