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)

condonation of delay, because the worst that can happen is that an issue would be considered on its merits rather than being dismissed on account of technical consideration. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after taking into account the circumstances, as described by the assessee in his petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit

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

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

section 154 of the Act dated 25-1-2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent is allowed." The issue before us being identical to that as dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court the decision rendered therein will squarely apply to the present case. Following

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)(NFAC) erred on. facts and in law in confirming the assessment made under sec. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 made for A.Y. 2017-18 refusing to condone

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

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

condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, by the AO vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed u/s 271B of I.T. Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: - “Penalty show

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

condone the delay in filing Form 10B. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 9 5.3 As regard appellant’s appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead of taxing the income over expenditure, it is stated that facts involved in the issue is that the appellant had disclosed gross receipts of Rs.1,27,76,341/- in the ITR and claimed expenses

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)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

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)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

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)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

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)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

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)

9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals have been filed late and the appeals are accompanied by applications for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee is A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh

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)

9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals have been filed late and the appeals are accompanied by applications for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee is A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The briefs facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property, income from capital gains, income from other sources and also receives salary from foreign country Maynmar. The assessee has filed the return of income

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