SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

69A of the Income Tax Act. He also brought the same to tax under section 115 BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. Aggrieved by this order dated 23.03.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC on 24.08.2023 along with a condonation petition to explain the delay

SAFARI SALES AND SERVICES,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SATNA

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "69A", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A and sum of Rs.5,26,033/- as income from other sources under section 56 on account of commission or brokerage received of Rs.5,24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before

DEEPAK KUMAR LALWANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, KATNI

In the result, the appeal 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 filed his return of income on 12/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on 13/11/2019 and determined the total income

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KATNI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, KATNI

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, filed his return of income on 27/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,80,360/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 20/11/2019

DAYA RAM YADAV,MANDLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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 and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.71/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Representative for Revenue did not express

JAGVEER SINGH,BANDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, SATNA

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

condoning the delay. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,76,85,400/- in his account with ICICI Bank Limited during the F.Y. 2017-18. However, he had not filed a return of income under section 139 and therefore, the ld. AO initiated proceedings under section

RAHMAN SHAH,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rahman Shah, H. No. 817, Vs. The Ito, Lakhanwarda Ghasanvada Bsrahira Ward-Chhindwara, M.P. Seja, Amarwada, Chhindwara, M.P. Pan:Ggkps4130P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Wherein The Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito-Ward 1, Chhindwara Under Section 144 Of The Act Dated 30.10.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. That The Learned Ao As Well As Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case Making Ex Party Order. The Assessee Did Not Received Any Communication Regarding The Hearing Of The Appeal. The Assessee Is Denied Opportunity Of Hearing. The Order Should Be Set-Aside. 2. The Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Is Illegal Unjustified. It Is Fully Covered But The Withdrawals From The Same Bank Account. The Addition Should Be Deleted In Toto. 3. The Assessee Is An Agriculturist & Advised Not Liable To Income Tax. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Should Be Quashed In Toto.

section 69A of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee is aggrieved at this summary dismissal of his appeal. Shri. G.N. Purohit, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) acted in haste in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. He drew our attention to the notices issued

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

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

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

RAVIKANT KHARE,TIKAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , TIKAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,21,120/- by making addition of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.4,26,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved

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

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

69A. The AO failed to consider the nature of business, source of receipts, debit entries, withdrawals, and cash flow cycle. Even under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD, only 8% of gross turnover can be considered as profit. It is humbly prayed that the addition may be deleted or referred back for proper assessment. 6. Prayer to Set Aside the Penalty

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

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

69A. The AO failed to consider the nature of business, source of receipts, debit entries, withdrawals, and cash flow cycle. Even under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD, only 8% of gross turnover can be considered as profit. It is humbly prayed that the addition may be deleted or referred back for proper assessment. 6. Prayer to Set Aside the Penalty

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

delay application in spite of having reasonable case as submitted by assessee henceforth the order of CIT(A) may kindly be quashed. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case LD CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue on merit & simply rejecting the appeal by disallowing condonation of filling appeal application. ., The order passed