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)

condoned, then the penalty order under section 272A(1)(d) would not remain sustainable. He admitted that the assessee should have simultaneously filed these appeals, but held that in the circumstances, the penalties were not sustainable and therefore, pleaded that the same should have been held in abeyance pending the decision on the assessment order. 6. Arguing on the merits

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. 6The 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) of the Act was issued. No scrutiny could be carried out by the respondent since the audit report under

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

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

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

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 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.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

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 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.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

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 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.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

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 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.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

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)

8. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further notice issued under section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly

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)

8. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further notice issued under section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly

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 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year. Applying the said circular the learned Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals

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

YUVIKA ALLOYS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Yuvika Alloys, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1(1), Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan : Aabfy 1482H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajeev Nema, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2022

condone the delay. However, a perusal of his order (paras 6 to 8) reveals no adjudication on merits, as stated, so that it is only apparently or ostensibly so. The impugned order, in our view, does not therefore satisfy the clear mandate of section

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)

8. This appeal pertains to the levy of penalty of Rs.25,13,436/- under section 271AAC of the Act on account of the total addition of Rs.4,18,90,600/- being the income chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE. 9. The facts of the case are that following the completion of assessment for the assessment year

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)

8. This appeal pertains to the levy of penalty of Rs.25,13,436/- under section 271AAC of the Act on account of the total addition of Rs.4,18,90,600/- being the income chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE. 9. The facts of the case are that following the completion of assessment for the assessment year

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)

8. This appeal pertains to the levy of penalty of Rs.25,13,436/- under section 271AAC of the Act on account of the total addition of Rs.4,18,90,600/- being the income chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE. 9. The facts of the case are that following the completion of assessment for the assessment year