ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. That I am making this affidavit in connection with the appeals against the orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. That the assessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That the appeal is being filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 19-12- 2024, received on email of my son Parth in Dec-2024. 3. That the due date for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 28/02/2025. 4. That there is a delay of 60 days

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 9. We find that assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2018. in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded that notices under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and that such notices were replied by assessee with details

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148 and further notices mentioned in the assessment order are not received physically and, therefore, ex-parte assessment was made in the case of appellant. The assessee is Kaccha Adatiya (Commission Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag./2024 Agent) at Amravati

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148 and further notices mentioned in the assessment order are not received physically and, therefore, ex-parte assessment was made in the case of appellant. The assessee is Kaccha Adatiya (Commission Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag./2024 Agent) at Amravati

LOKSEWA SHIKSHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA MANDAL,BULDHANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

2 Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A] 11.11.2014 on 09.03.2023. Thus, there is a delay of eight years, eighty-eight days. The appellant has filed an affidavit of secretary of the appellant, along with condonation application. The appellant had admitted in the condonation application that there is a delay in filing of appeal before ITAT of eight years, eighty-eight days

ARPITA MATHEW ARUKAKKAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

condonation of delay filed during the appellate proceedings. 2 Arpita Mathew Arukakkal 2. On the facts and circumstances of case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without deciding the appeal on merit and without considering the circumstances occurred in filing the appeal in delay as no notice

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

condoned the delay of 21 days in tiling of appeal since the 2 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 assessee being a person with no means working as Watchman. The assessee was advised to provide with the documents for claiming of relief which he received on 09th May 2023 and subsequent to which appeal before the CIT(A) was filed

SANJAY MOTIRAMJI MULEY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (4)(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Motiramji Muley, Ward No.7, Mahajan Pura ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Pardi Nagpur 440008. Pan – Akdpm6463G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(4), Nagpur Assessee By : Ms. Alfiya Rozie.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

2 Sanjay Motiramji Muley ITA no.4/Nag./2025 learned A.R.") referred to the Affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasonable cause where the assessee is not aware of the legal provisions of the Act and the delay is not deliberate act and prayed for condonation of delay. And the learned Departmental Representative has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay