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

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 3rd June, 2022 at Ahmedabad. In lieu of the explanation and case laws referred it is requested that the intimation order under section 143(1) under relevance may kindly be quashed and in alternative the expenses

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

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

1). This Court in the Sparsh Association of Development Professionals & Consultants. said order has observed that the approach of the authority in the se type of cases should be equitable, balancing and judicious. Technically speaking respondent No. 2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 11 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, which

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

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

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)

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 be quashed. 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

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)

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 be quashed. 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

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

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

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

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeals admitted for hearing. After considering the applications of the assessee and the affidavits sworn by him, we admit the appeals for adjudication in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year

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

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs. 30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs. 30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs. 30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated

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

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs. 30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated

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)

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal

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)

1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal