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.

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 and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act on 30.08.2018.The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,519/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained unsecured loan without appreciating the facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeals against the orders of the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the ld. AO for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The grounds of appeal in the said appeals are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeals against the orders of the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the ld. AO for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The grounds of appeal in the said appeals are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

M/S NARSINGH EXTRACTION & ALLIED PRODUCTS P. LTD,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Narsingh Extraction & Vs Asst.Cit, Allied Products P.Ltd., Circle-2(1), 389, Gupteshwar Ward, Jabalpur Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn2387H Assessee By Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

68 of the Act. 5. That the applicant itself has disallowed the amount u/s 43B of the current year and claimed the amount paid during the year as deduction, hence the ld AO was not justified in adding Rs. 3,71,548/- to the income of the appellant by applying the provision of section 43B of the Act. 6

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeals NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing appeal of the Assessee without considering the merits of the case. The order passed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeals NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing appeal of the Assessee without considering the merits of the case. The order passed

SHRI PRINCE RAI,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

section 250(6) of the Act (again, read out during hearing), which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The provision is clear and unambiguous, and draws no exception for an ex parte order

PAYAL SUKHRAMANI,SATNA vs. ITO WARD-2 , SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.128/3, First Floor, Satna Master Plan, Near Overbridge, Satna, Madhya Pradesh-485001 Pan:Bwdps3622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 3.04.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward-2, Stana Dated 9.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit (A) Order Is Bad In Law, Facts Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That The Ld Cit Appeals Failed To Appreciate That The Sale Of Shares Was For A Consideration Of Rs 6,15,550 Whereas Addition Made For Rs 24,25,650/- By Mistake. The Assessee Made Submission Against Ground No.2 Regarding Clerical Mistake & Also Informed For Rectification Application Filed On Filed Has Been Rejected. 3. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining Addition For Rs 24,25,650 U/S 68 Against Sale Of Shares Claimed As Exmpet U/S 10(38). 4. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Against Addition Made U/S 68 For Ay 2012-13. 5. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 1,23,263/- Against Alleged Commission Payment For Transaction In Shares. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 3.04.2024, dismissing the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Stana dated 9.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the CIT (A) order is bad in law, facts void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 2. That

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeals of the assessee filed against the orders of the ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 14.11.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) supporting the order

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law being ex-parte, thus violating the "principle of natural justice", by not giving proper opportunity to the assessee; who was bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause

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

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

250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 500000/- on account of family deposit which is unjustified, arbitrary and bad in law. 2.That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in his action of upholding the impugned addition

SHAILESH JAISWAL,,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, - KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 in terms of trite law, toward which we may cite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju

SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 07.03.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur, is illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Satna, was illegal and bad in law. 3. That

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,34,37,980/- levied by the JCIT, Range Satna on account of acceptance of cash deposit in violation of Sec. 269SS

M/S. R M SALES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.08.2023 is illegal and bad in law. 3. As per the facts and in position of law, Hon’ble CIT (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the Ld. A.O.’s Order passed u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in disallowing the claim made by the appellant aggregating to Rs 2,87,332/comprising