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)

2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not submit any reply to these notices. The ld. AO, thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 24.01.2021, but the assessee did not respond to the same. Therefore, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee had nothing to say in this regard and he added back

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

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

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

2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 11 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, which is a public charitable trust for past 30 years which substantially satisfies the conditions for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide

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)

condone delay in filing of appeal of only one day and without issuing any notice of hearing under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) under sec. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 26/07/2024 is contrary

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

2 months. This cannot be countenanced. The medical exigency is not able to explain such a long delay. The 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

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

2)(b) of the Act. In the present case, there is no evidence on record that the appellant filed any such condonation petition before the Commissioner. CPC was therefore justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 9

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

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

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 ITR 2

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the 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