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)

142(1) were issued to the assessee, but none of A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit them were complied with. Therefore, in view of the non-compliance, the ld. AO decided proceed ex parte and complete the assessment of the case in a best judgment manner, by resorting to section 144 of the Income

JILA SAHAKARI BANK MARYDIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(2),

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 231/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sadan, Wright Town, Vs Ward 1(2), Jabalpur (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aaajj 0118 J / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 9Th June 2016 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/Ward/1(3)/Jbp/079/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 144/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 27.03.2015 Framed By The Ito, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur.

142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. On few occasions none appeared; accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 144/143(3) of the Act making various additions on the basis of financial statements and audit report available on record. Learned Assessing Officer made a disallowance

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

142(1) is clearly toward obtaining information deemed relevant by the assessing authority from the assessee. The second function of the said notice is to cause furnishing of a return of income where the same has not been furnished u/s. 139, and which is clearly not the case. In sum, the Ground is without merit and, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Ground

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

section 147 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire on 20.09.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 27.09.2017, but neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any compliance made till 19.10.2017. 2 | P a g e Consequently

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee, the details of which are recorded in the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee had incurred interest expenses for earning exempt income. She had shown investment to the tune of Rs. 2,29,71,470/- as on 31.03.2016 and earned

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)

disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna Construction Company expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.20,38,532/- from Executive Engineer, Bansagar, Keoti Canal Division, Rewa, but as per 26AS, the assessee was seen

SHRI D.P.AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RENGE -1, JABALPUR

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 27/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri D. P. Agrawal, Additional Commissioner Of 1392, Main Road, Gorakhpur, Vs Income-Tax, Jabalpur (Mp) Range-1, Pan : Acxpa 0688 H Jabalpur / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur Dated 24Th April, 2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/(A)-1/Ad.Cit-R-1/Jbp/319/2009-10, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 21.12.2009 Framed By The Acit, Range-1, Jabalpur.

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- for coal

BARNALI SAMANTA,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD2(5), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

142(1)/143(2) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs.27 lakhs from three parties at Rs.9 lakhs each. Investigations were carried out to examine the alleged unsecured loans in the light of provisions of Section 68 of the Act, but the assessee failed

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed in assessment. It was, therefore, perfectly within his competence to have required the AO to examine the pertinent issues coming to his notice qua the determination of capital gains chargeable u/s. 45 on the sale of the relevant property. 3.3 The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Doshi, would, in rejoinder, submit that it could not be said that

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

section 119(2)(b) is pending.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information through ITBA software that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.5,89,76,696/-; made contract payments of Rs.1,40,392/-; made commission payments of Rs.3,88,381/- and received interest of Rs.12,695/- but not filed any income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

142(1) along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.89,72.239/- on account of bogus purchases shown in trading account, Rs.84,65,420/- on account of undisclosed receipts, Rs.89.38.780/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and Rs.14,265/- on account of unexplained interest. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/11/2018, the assessee preferred appeal before

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI MYD. TILHARI JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) vide which the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse-appellant by confirming the assessment order dated 17-12-2018 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. 2.1 The assesse is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Societies

NARENDRA AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO-WARD 1 (2),, JABALPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 43B. Since, the said challans go to the root of the matter and is the most crucial evidence involved in the case, it is humbly requested before the Hon'ble Bench to accept Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground

GAYATRI DEVI AGRAWAL,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -BALAGHAT , BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire are issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that most of the expenses are not properly supported and in respect of unsecured loan the assessee could

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

142(1) dated 06/1/2016, as indeed the assessment order dated 17/2/2016 (for the current year), made out at the same address (PB-1, pgs. 2-3). Sh. Ghai would clarify that the communication to the AO was on 19/03/2016, i.e., while filing the return of his late father for AY 2015-16. The same is, thus, admittedly after the impugned