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

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

reassessment order and referred the matter back to the AO. Consequently, no penalty could arise in that year. It is prayed that the appellant be afforded the same equitable treatment for AY 2013-14. 4. Genuine and Bona Fide Error, Not Wilful Non-Compliance - No Mens Rea The appellant is a small trader, not well-versed in digital systems

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

10. It is a specific case of the assessee before the CIT(A) that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the assessee and assessment orders have been passed without issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the Assessment Orders are null and void. The CIT(A) had called for the Remand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

10. It is a specific case of the assessee before the CIT(A) that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the assessee and assessment orders have been passed without issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the Assessment Orders are null and void. The CIT(A) had called for the Remand

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

reassessment is erroneous is unsustainable and bad in law. 11. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 42/Jab/2021: 12. The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice

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

reassessment is erroneous is unsustainable and bad in law. 11. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 42/Jab/2021: 12. The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 148 was passed in the name of the Sunil kumar pathak legal heir of late Ram Karan Pathak. Further CIT(A) has also passed appeal order in the name of SUNIL PATHAK ONLY and not in the name of SUNIL PATHAK legal Heir of the of late Ram Karan Pathak. 5.WITH OUT GROUND TO to 4 NUMBER 1 further