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

Section 11 of the Act. However, nowhere in the appellate order the ld. CIT(A) disputed the fact that assessee was not registered u/s.12A of the Act. The registration certificate granted by the department on 2.9.2014 is on record. Further the uploading of Form-10B which is a audit report u/s.12A(b) of the Act, proves that the mistake committed

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

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

condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent is allowed. 6. The respondent is now directed to process the return in accordance with law. It is noticed that no assessment is framed and only an intimation under Section 143(1

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)

6. We also observed that the CBDT has itself vide its Circular No.19/2023 dated 1.11.2023 directed that the delay of filing Form 10-IC as per Rule 21 AE for the assessment year 2021-22 was to be condoned in cases where the following conditions were satisfied. i. The return of income for the relevant year had been filed

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

6 well. A self-serving medical fitness certificate advising rest for 2 months. This cannot be countenanced. The medical exigency is not able to explain such a long delay. The delay explained is not falling within the provisions of section 273B of ITA 1961. I therefore hold that appellant has failed to meet the tests laid down

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)

6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under section 148 of the act is time barred as it was issued on 01.04.2021 and it is also invalid as it was issued under the old regime as from 01.04.2021 act was amended and AO was bound to issue

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)

6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under section 148 of the act is time barred as it was issued on 01.04.2021 and it is also invalid as it was issued under the old regime as from 01.04.2021 act was amended and AO was bound to issue

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

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

6. Additional Ground: Application of Section 273B-Reasonable Cause Exists The appellant humbly invokes section 273B of the Act, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if there was a reasonable cause for the failure. In this case, the lack of notice, lack of technical skills, and the appellant's prompt rectification efforts all point to a reasonable cause

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

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

6. Additional Ground: Application of Section 273B-Reasonable Cause Exists The appellant humbly invokes section 273B of the Act, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if there was a reasonable cause for the failure. In this case, the lack of notice, lack of technical skills, and the appellant's prompt rectification efforts all point to a reasonable cause

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

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

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 in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of 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