SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

RADHESHYAM,VILLAGE SEVDA , ASHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

cash deposits made in the Bank Account as income ignoring the outgoings from the Bank Account. 3. That the income assessed at Rs. 12,85,000/-and confirmed by the CIT(A) be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The income assessed be quashed and deleted. 4. In the alternative

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, President of the Society, Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed the substantive addition

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

cash deposit made during the year\".\nCondonation of delay necessarily depends upon the sufficiency of the\ncause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation. There is a\ndistinction between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse' An 'explanation'\ninvolves putting forth all of the facts and lay out the cause for something.\nIt helps clarify the circumstances of a particular

GYAN PRAKASH TIWARI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

condone the delay of 81 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant is a government school

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoning the delay that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to the present case. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,55,115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoning the delay that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to the present case. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,55,115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits

BHARAT SINGH PAWAR ,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Bharat Singh Pawar, Income-Tax Officer, Gram Chorana, Ward 1, बनाम/ Post Nau Gaon, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bnxpp4510K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- i. The ld. NFAC was not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec 147 was illegal, void, in breach of principle of natural justice. ii. That

RAJENDRA KUMAR PATIDAR,C/O. CA. RAJESH HEERALAL MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, IRRIGATION COLONY

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradshri Rajendra Kumar Patidar, Income Tax Officer, 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Shajapur 11, Rnt Marg, Vs. Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqlpp9145L Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2 Rajendra Kumar Patidar “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ujjain ("the Ld. CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,41,500/- made

SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR,VIDISHA vs. ITO VIDISHA, VIDISHA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and working as a RTO agent. Income of Rs.1,59,410/- was declared in the return filed on 31.07.2011 for A.Y. 2011-12. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS Smt. Sanman singh Kirar

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

cash sales itself are doubtful. 7.5 In view of the above observations, the addition of Rs. 22,04,600/- made by the AO as unexplained deposits is hereby confirmed. Thus, additional ground raised by the assessee is Dismissed. 8. To conclude, the present appeal is DISMISSED.” 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned. Most respectfully we also place reliance on the judgement of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 2395/2008 in the case case of\nImprovement Trust Ludhiana v. Ujakar Singh & another vide judgment dated\n09/02/2010 in which it is held that unless malafides at large, delay should be\ncondoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits

NIKITA GUPTA,ALIRAJPUR vs. ITO-2, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshinikita Gupta, Income Tax Officer-2, C/O Lb Gold, Ratlam Csa Marg, Vs. Alirajpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpg0456K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

condone the delay of 7 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only addition made is towards unexplained cash deposit