KALA JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

delay. Accordingly we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal. Appeal taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted before this tribunal that the\nassessee is in the business of grocery/grocery store at\nMarothiya Bazar, Indore which is run in the name and style of\nM/s Roopchand Kishanlal Kirana Merchant. The assessee's\nsource of income is from

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

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL 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

TILAK KUMAR MALVIYA,JHABUA vs. ITO-2, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

demonetization. The AO treated a significant portion of these deposits as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay without adjudicating on merits. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

AKHILESH PARMAR,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the AO's addition was based on a lack of documentary evidence. The AO had made additions based on cash deposits during demonetization

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,GRAM MINDIA, SANVER ROAD vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That an information was received in respect of assessee through AIMs module of TBA that the assessee during the period of demonetization

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

demonetization added u/s, 69A of the Act Rs. 15,50,000/- ii) Other credits in Bank Account added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 6,79,15,359/- Total Disallowances Rs. 6,92,65,359/- In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant are dismissed. 5.9 Before parting

SAI BABA AGENCY ,VISHAL TOWER NAVLAKHA vs. ITO 5(1) INDORE, MAIN BUILDING INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshisai Baba Agency, Income Tax Officer-5(1), 35, Vishal Tower, Indore Navlakha, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acxfs4495A Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmer Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Dated

condone the delay of 7 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the issue on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

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 during the demonetization

LAXMI SHARMA,DEWAS vs. THE ITO,W-1, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Laxmi Sharma, I.T.O., 59, Kalisindh Marg, Ward-1, बनाम/ Mandir Ke Samne, Dewas Sonkatch, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Eczps1069E Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta,Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

condoning delay and this appeal is proceeded for hearing. Page 2 of 4 Smt.Laxmi Sharma v. ITO,WD.1,Dewas Assessment year 2017-18 4. The case of assessee is such that during assessment-proceeding, the AO confronted the assessee as to the source of Rs. 11,10,000/- deposited in bank account during demonetization

NEMICHAND JAIN,KALANI NAGAR, INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2017-18 Nemichand Jain Ito 4(1) 2, Airport Road, Indore बनाम/ Kalani Nagar Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj8164A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,16,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

condonation of delay application & an affidavit in the support thereof. Appeal is admitted & taken up for the hearing. 5.2 The Ld. DR for and on behalf of the Revenue then contended that in the sum & the substance there are two issues in the present appeal. In respect of the first issue the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition

SAI MOTORS,INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsai Motors, Income Tax Officer, C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Khargone 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafeal Tower, Vs. Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acyfs6381E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 O R D E R

condoning delay in filing of appeal even when the appellant was having sufficient cause for not present appeal before due date of filing of appeal and therefore, the appeal was required to be admitted as per section 249(3) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing

RAJESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajesh Mangal, Acit-3(1), बनाम/ 2/8, New Palasia, Indore Vs. Indore (Pan: Abwpm2674D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ayush Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

demonetization. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on reasons and grounds specified therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before

BHARTIYA AADARSH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhartiya Aadarsh Deputy Commissioner Of Shikshan Samiti, Income-Tax (Exemption), Manas Bhawan, Bhopal बनाम/ Sanjit Road, Vs. Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabab2693N Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, C.A. & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024

condone delay subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned in last para of this order. 5. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a society engaged in charitable purpose of advancing education. The AO, based on an information from AIMS Module of ITBA regarding cash deposited by assessee in bank a/c during

TIRUPATI IRON INDIA PVT.LTD ,KABADKAHANA vs. DCIT-4(1), BITTAN MARKET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanitirupati Iron India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit -4(1) E-32, Liyaqat Market, Bittan Market Vs. New Kabadkhana Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct6665J Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R

delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3.The assesee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of honourable CIT(A) is bad in law. 2.That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable CIT(A) failed in providing proper opportunity

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

demonetization) and other credits in the bank\naccount as unexplained income under section 69A of the\nIncome Tax Act and has further erred in ignoring the fact\nPage 11 of 18\nKamlesh Koushal\nITA No. 708/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18\nthat the appellant is a farmer and having only source of\nincome out of agricultural activities. The appellant\ntherefore, most humbly prays that

GAURAV GUPTA,JHABUA vs. ITO JHABUA , JHABUA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Shri Gaurav Gupta, Ito, Ward No. 9, Jhabua बनाम/ Petlawad, Vs. Jhabua (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Buxpg0125J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

demonetization period. It is further observed that although the assessee submitted to AO that he received sufficient sums from his parents for making deposit but the AO rejected assessee’s submission for want of supporting documents. The assessee contested AO’s order in first-appeal before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal on account of delay