JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

68 of\nthe Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)\nand 271(1)(b) of the Act.\n3. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before\nthe ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that the appeal, which was\nto be filed by 25.03.2022, had only been filed

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

148 on 29.05.2021, without any change to the income declared in the original return. 3. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 30.03.2022, assessing the income at Rs. 42,56,500/-. This included an addition of Rs. 26,29,800/- under Section 68

NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BANDA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 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 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee was asked to file the return of income. A notice under section 133(6) was also issued to Madhyanchal Gramin Bank which confirmed the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash amounting to Rs.68,21,182/-, as alleged by the Department. The assessee

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued for both assessment years along with orders under section 148A(d), with the prior approval of the specified authority. The ld. AO records that in both assessment years, a number of opportunities were given by the assessee to make compliance to the various notices issued by the Department, but these

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued for both assessment years along with orders under section 148A(d), with the prior approval of the specified authority. The ld. AO records that in both assessment years, a number of opportunities were given by the assessee to make compliance to the various notices issued by the Department, but these

DAYANAND PARYANI,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Dayanand Paryani V. Income Tax Officer Madhur Courier Service Income Tax Office, Opposite Raj Vilas Hotel, Singrauli, Tali Road, Martand Complex Rew, Sidhi- Waidhan, Singrauli- 486001. 486886 Pan: Aespp8087N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

148 is bad in law and addition was made mechanically without any proper inquiry. 3. The learned Commissioner of „Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.29,38,600/- made by the AO under section 68

RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

68, when AO himself admitting in the assessment order that the difference of 5% 'was applicable as allowable difference between circle rate and actual rate of purchase of property. Hence forth the addition of Rs 6 lacs should have been deleted by AO. 1 A.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

AMARJEER PRASAD JAISWAL,SINGRAULI vs. ITO,SINGRAULI WARD, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjeet Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito, Amarjeet Photocopy, Singrauli Ward, Chitrangi, Singrauli, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh-486882 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arzpa1544R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

68 of the IT Act, 1961. 1 | P a g e 02. Because the Learned CITA has failed to associate the fact that the Appellant is engaged in the business of providing E Pay services of MP Online Limited & earning service charges thereon and whole of the cash deposited in the bank account stands fully explained out of Cash collected

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

section 148 is bad in law if it was based on audit objection and hence it is prayed that record may be called from the department.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income on 20.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.64,720/-. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It has also not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to furnish Form 10DB as required by the Assessing Officer to establish the payment of Security Transaction Tax which would establish the genuinity of the share transaction. 2. Although the tax effect involved in this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged in appeal', attaining finality. 2.2 In the penalty proceedings, initiated

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

148(1) before the AO, as was indeed the case in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), laying down the said procedure. Why, an order passed without observing the principles of natural justice, makes it, in terms of settled law, erroneous, so that the normal course adopted would be its set aside to the relevant

BHUPENDRA SINGH,NARSINGHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhupendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Bhabha Ward, Gadarawara Ward Narsinghpur, Narsinghpur (Mp)-487551. Narsinghpur (Mp)- 487001. Tan/Pan:Gbdps6826N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra S. Thakur, Ca Shri Avinash Mishra, Ca Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

section 69A do not apply. The returned income may please be considered as disclosed by the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground the return income disclosed by assessee are mainly from interest income. This amount has already been considered by the AO while making addition for entire deposits in bank account. Thus the same is double addition