RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, KATNI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed by 7 days. A condonation application has been filed by the assessee in which it has been submitted that since the wife of the assessee was suffering from various

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 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 in IT Act, 1961 and Ld.JAO has rightly imposed penalty. Dismissed also as the Hon'ble Cochin ITAT in the case of M/s. Paravur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No.105/Coch/2023

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)

section 69 of the Act, without considering the reply filed by the appellant before the AO in which it was stated that no such property was purchased or sold from Smt. Bharti Waswani and addition was made merely on the basis of AIR information and no independent investigation was done by the AO to verify it without following the true

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration disclosing income of Rs.7,09,360/- which got invalidated. The assessee neither filed return of income against notice

I M C OF ITI ,GOTEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPURAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Imc Of Iti,Gotegaon, Vs. Ito (Exemption) Annex Bldg, Mission Jabalpur, Chowk, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh- Madhya Pradesh- 482001. 482001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai2999F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act.

section 139(4) (e), which require filling of ITR mandatory w.e.f 1.4.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016-17 2. That the CIT(appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of refund Rs. 69290/-alleging not having filed the ITR-7 on 14.06.2013 ask acknowledgment No. 299140613004324 affixed on forwarding letter, as per practice, not affixing seal on the ITR page, without confirming

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

69. (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed by 5 days. A condonation application has been filed by the assessee in which it has been submitted that since the wife of the assessee was suffering from various medical problems for which

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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that