SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble\Nand\Nshri B.M. Biyani\Nita No.510/Ind/2025\N Assessment Year:2012-13\Nsanjay Mukati,\N225, Tanki Chowk,\Nbijalpur,\Nindore\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nito 2(1)\Nindore\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Bcepm6423N\Nassessee By Shri Rishikesh Mishra, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N11.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N23.12.2025\Nआदेश / Order\Nper B.M. Biyani, A.M.:\Nfeeling Aggrieved By Order Of First-Appeal Dated 13.02.2025 Passed By\Nlearned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Which\Nin Turn Arises Out Of Assessment-Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By Learned\Nito-2(4), Indore [“Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The\Nact"] For Assessment-Year [“Ay"] 2012-13, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal\Non The Grounds Mentioned In Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).\Nsanjay Mukati\Nita No. 510/Ind/2025 - Ay 2012-13\N2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 31\Ndays & Therefore Time-Barred. Ld. Ar For Assessee Submitted That The\Nassessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By\Naffidavit; The Affidavit Filed By Assessee Is Scanned & Re-Produced For An\Nimmediate Reference:\Nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\Nएक सौ रुपये\Nrs.100\None\Nhundred Rupees\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14494\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ngov\Nof\Nindia Non Noted Registered\Nमध्य प्रदेश Madhya Pradesh\Notary\Nvijay Dewang\Nindore (M.P.)\Nreg. No. 14484\Nexpiry Dt. 11/09/2029\Ned\Nserial No. .......\Ndate..

31 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing limited understanding of tax matters and other obligations. The CIT(A) had rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee without a proper petition, and upheld the additions made by the AO.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

31,75,000/- qua those additions u/s 271(1)(c) vide penalty-order dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by both orders, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed assessee’s quantum-appeal vide order dated 09.02.2023 and penalty- appeal vide order dated 24.01.2024 wherein the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. Now, the assessee has come

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

31,75,000/- qua those additions u/s 271(1)(c) vide penalty-order dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by both orders, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed assessee’s quantum-appeal vide order dated 09.02.2023 and penalty- appeal vide order dated 24.01.2024 wherein the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. Now, the assessee has come

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condonation petition is not supported with documentary evidences, defective memo was issued to the appellant and he was asked to substantiate his delay in filing the appeal for 2037 days. In response to the notice, the appellant filed another submission, which is reproduced below: BEFORE THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS Page 6 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condonation petition is not supported with documentary evidences, defective memo was issued to the appellant and he was asked to substantiate his delay in filing the appeal for 2037 days. In response to the notice, the appellant filed another submission, which is reproduced below: BEFORE THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS Page 6 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

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. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024-

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

31,92,473 are upheld as the appellant has failed to explain the nature and source of the credits and hence did not discharge the burden casted upon him. The appellant's grounds are found to be untenable due to the fact that specific findings in the assessment order have not been controverted by the appellant along with corroborative evidences

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are as under:\n(i)\nThe AO, on the basis of information of certain financial transactions\nhaving been done by assessee in the previous year 2011-12 relevant to\nAY 2012-13 under consideration, issued notice u/s 148 to assessee\ndated 29.03.2018 and thereby initiated

VIRENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

section 144B of the Act on 27.05.2023 by estimating commission income at 5% of the alleged transaction value of ₹13,86,31,900/- and made an addition of ₹69,31,595/- as unexplained income, thereby assessing the total income at ₹69,31,595/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeals and proceed to adjudicate on merits. Facts in brief: 6. The assessee filed return of AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 at a total income of Rs. Nil and Rs. Nil respectively, which were originally assessed vide 1st assessment-order dated

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

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

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

SIDDHI VINAYAK,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

section 253(5) of the Act allows the ITAT to admit a belated appeal in case of “sufficient cause”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji has stipulated following principles in the matter of condonation of delay and for that matter while looking into “sufficient cause”: Page 5 of 16 Siddhi Vinayak, Indore

PURSHOTTAM RATHORE,RATLAM vs. ITO 1(2), UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed

condone delay and admit this\nappeal.\n5. Ld. AR next submitted that it is true that the assessee was unable to\ncomply with notices issued by AO during assessment-proceedings and\ntherefore the AO made addition of Rs.16,69,500/- by treating entire amount\nof deposits in bank a/c as unexplained money. But it is also a fact that

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss