M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

delay of 10 months from 07.09.2022 to 03.07.2023 is directly due to sheer negligence of assessee. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any sympathy. (vi) Lastly, he relied upon decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) and Royal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras HC) and also

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay could not be condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "253", "143(3)", "270A", "274", "270AA", "270AA(1)", "270AA(2)", "156", "246A

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay which had occurred while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee herein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his job he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein Page 9 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys

HARISH KUMAR CHANDNANI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

section 156\nPage 9 of 11\nHarish Kumar Chandnani\nITA No. 107/Ind/2025 – AY 2012-13\nenabling the AO to issue Notice of Demand in the name of any person other\nthan the person in whose name Assessment-order has been made. Further,\nthe Ld. DR for revenue has not been able to show any other provision in\nIncome

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nAccordingly, you are requested to pay the entire Demand within 30 days of receipt of this intimation. The payment can be made\nusing the printed challan enclosed. The Tax Payment challan is enclosed where the Tax Payable exceeds Rs.100.\n4)If you are not satisfied with the intimation under Section

RADHAKISHAN,KHATEGAON, DEWAS vs. ITO-2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay looking to the profile of\nthe assessee being senior citizen & agriculturist. After\nconsidering the submission of both the Ld. AR & Ld. DR we\ncondone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal\nis admitted & taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on\nrecord of this Tribunal

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

156 of the Act is issued. Hence, it can be fairly concluded that all the notices issued by the AO were issued at the same address i.e H No. A- 177, Sector-A, Indrapuri, Bhopal. Hence, there is no plausible reason to accept that though the assessee was able to receive notice dated 16.12.2016, the earlier notices issued

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

condone the delay. There are no malafides. The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for which the Ld. DR had no objection. 3.4 The Ld. AR stated that

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

156, has held that\nlevy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the\nposition being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the\nAssessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the\nnotice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited