SUSHIL KUMAR,NARSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, NARSINGHPUR, NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Kumar Ito, Ward Narsinghpur V. Main Road,Gandhi Ward, Income Tax Officer Ward, Kandeli, Narsinghpur, Mp- Narsinghpur, Mp-487001. 487001. Pan:Awwpk7164R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

unexplained money hence the order is bad. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Thus, the addition is bad in law and should be deleted. 11. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground on or before the date of hearing

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.

unexplained money assessable under section 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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 16/02/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. (C) At the time of hearing in Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence of any representation

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 26/03/2025, the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) in limine on limitation ground, without going into merits of the appeal (C) At the time of hearing, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted

RAM LAKHAN DWIVEDI,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 Ram Lakhan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer 139, Rohaniya Khurd, Pakaria, Ward-1, Satna Distt-Maihar-485773. Income Tax Office, Civil Lines Chowk, Satna- 485001. Pan:Exmpd6359C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided the case on merits. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order under sec. 147 read with sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21/03/2024 determining the total income at Rs. 7,24,417/is unjustified, arbitrary, ab initio void, without jurisdiction and against

JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay. The ld. CIT(A) noted that during 2 A.Y. 2018-19 Jain Ware House the course of assessment, the assessee had not been able to explain the source of money to the satisfaction of the ld. AO and he also noted that the assessee had not furnished any reply or any evidence in support of the claim

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

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

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

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 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 Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

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. 1,18,95,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath