NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj’. For AY 2011-12, the assessee did not file any return. The AO, on the basis of information

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

198), we find that for Assessment Year 2011-12 Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts only for the reason that excess stock during the search was found and accordingly estimated the gross profit rate of the appellant. However, for Assessment Year 2010-11 as per the order of Tribunal vide IT(SS)A No. 257,258,568/Ind/2015 dated

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

198), we find that for Assessment Year 2011-12 Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts only for the reason that excess stock during the search was found and accordingly estimated the gross profit rate of the appellant. However, for Assessment Year 2010-11 as per the order of Tribunal vide IT(SS)A No. 257,258,568/Ind/2015 dated

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

198), we find that for Assessment Year 2011-12 Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts only for the reason that excess stock during the search was found and accordingly estimated the gross profit rate of the appellant. However, for Assessment Year 2010-11 as per the order of Tribunal vide IT(SS)A No. 257,258,568/Ind/2015 dated