JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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.

142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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.

142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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

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

sections 148, 142(1), or 144 was served at his correct residential address, and therefore, he was unaware of the reassessment

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

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

sections 148, 142(1), or 144 was served at his correct residential address, and therefore, he was unaware of the reassessment

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

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

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 144B of the Act, dated 17/09/2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background of facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, who had initially filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs. 2,28,630, was subject to reassessment on account of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts

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

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

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

142(1), dated 24/11/2016 in assessment, and toward which the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Bardia, would take us through a table (at pgs. 6-8 of his written submissions (WS)), correlating the two sets of queries, i.e., one by the Pr. CIT, stating the aspects not inquired into by the AO during the assessment proceedings, and the other