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

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

reassessment and referred the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration under the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a). It is respectfully prayed that a consistent approach may kindly be adopted in the present appeal for AY 2013-14 as well. 3

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

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

reassessment and referred the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration under the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a). It is respectfully prayed that a consistent approach may kindly be adopted in the present appeal for AY 2013-14 as well. 3

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

reassessment was the failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part

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.

reassessment was the failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part

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

3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment was framed on income determined in original assessment on 26/02/2014. 9. Considering the above factual position in this regard and their being no claim of interest in Profit & Loss Accoun

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

3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment was framed on income determined in original assessment on 26/02/2014. 9. Considering the above factual position in this regard and their being no claim of interest in Profit & Loss Accoun

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

VISHWANATH SINGH RATHODE,HOSHANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, ITARSI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not admitting the appeal contrary to relief sought under proviso to section 249(4) which is not justified and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Assessing Officer (A O) has not given appropriate opportunity

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

1. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, on receipt of ex parte assessment order under section 144, the assessee did not have correct advice and the reasons for delay of her serious illness were not disclosed correctly in from 35 and therefore could not be filed correctly in appeal at Ld. CIT-A in time