MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143/263 & 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) respectively for A.Y. 2009-10. Since both the matters are inter connected and of the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143/263 & 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) respectively for A.Y. 2009-10. Since both the matters are inter connected and of the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

263 of the Act. He has thus, submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons as explained, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be decided on merits. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that the reasons

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

263 of the Act for A.Y.2016-17. 2. This appeal was filed on 04.03.2022 against the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 therefore, there is a delay of 292 days. Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suo Motu Cognizance for extension of Limitation reported

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, we paid the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. 5. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, Hon'ble Bench is hereby requested to-condone

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

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 263 of the Income Tax ITA No. 117/Ind/2021 (Gunveer Singh Chhabra vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 2 Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 48 days in preferring instant appeal before

JABBAR KHAN,DEWAS vs. CIT , UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

263 and passing the impugned order under this section is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding the assessment order as erroneous due to alleged lack of enquiry

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. J.C. Sharma & Sons Pr. Cit -2 बनाम Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aaefj 6447 L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhuller, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed for hearing of appeal. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-firm is engaged in real-estate business. It filed return of income of the relevant AY 2015-16 on 27.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 39,94,050/-. The case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” and statutory notices were issued

M/S AADHAR ASSOCIATES,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

delay of 330 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Id CIT was not justified in passing order u/s. 263, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled

SHRI SANDEEEP RAGHUVANSHI,HARDA vs. THE PCIT.BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, my regular counsel asked me to pay the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay.” 4.1 Thus, the assessee has explained cause of delay that he was not aware about proceedings u/s 263 initiated by the Pr. CIT and the impugned order

ROOP SINGH TANWAR,DEWAS vs. THE CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts leading to present appeal are such that the revenue received an information that the assessee had made large cash- deposit in bank account, accordingly action u/s 147 was taken by issuing notice dated 23.03.2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income declaring

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MUKATI, INDORE,INDORE vs. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263

SHRI MOTILAL MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263

SHRI DILIP MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263

SHRI AKASH MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263

SHRI SHANKAR LAL MUKATI-INDORE,INDORE vs. AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263

SHRI BADRILAL GOVINDJI MUKATI,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019:- GROUND I: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax -I, Indore ["the PCIT"] erred in invoking provisions of section 263