M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

condonation of delay in respect of refund due. This instruction is issued with an objective to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Para 7 of the Instruction, in our view, is limited to the extent of ascertaining the claim of the assessee. This does not empower the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the entire case, which goes against

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

40,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank a/c on 16.01.2015 and thereby determining total income at Rs. 46,12,360/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) on 30.12.2019 with a huge delay of 669 days as calculated by CIT(A). The CIT(A) was not satisfied with

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 115BBE of the Act was proposed. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced herewith. Para-4 of reply dated 28.12.2022 During

RAVINDRA JAISWAL,BADWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SENDHWA, SENDWA

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

40 days in filling of this appeal may very kindly be condoned so that justice may be done. (Ravindra Jaiswal) Ravindra Jaiswal ITA No. 431/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18 3. The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatary and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said amount of payments as made to PWD by the respondent assessee company were not in nature of penalty.” 4. Before going into the merits of the case, it is observed that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee. In this

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said amount of payments as made to PWD by the respondent assessee company were not in nature of penalty.” 4. Before going into the merits of the case, it is observed that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee. In this

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said amount of payments as made to PWD by the respondent assessee company were not in nature of penalty.” 4. Before going into the merits of the case, it is observed that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee. In this

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

40,000/-. made by the AO under section 69A of the Act without appreciating the explanation, documentary evidence and AO Remand Report provided that the said amount represents consideration received on account of sale of agricultural land. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the Appellant for substantiating her claims, especially in light of the personal

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

section 40(b)(iii). Hence, we uphold the impugned order to that extent. ITANo.215/Ind/2013 9. This appeal is arising from penalty order passed u/s 271AAC(1)(d) of the Act. There is a delay of three days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

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

section 40(b)(iii). Hence, we uphold the impugned order to that extent. ITANo.215/Ind/2013 9. This appeal is arising from penalty order passed u/s 271AAC(1)(d) of the Act. There is a delay of three days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

NAGEENA BI,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 1(1), , BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

40 days be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench while showing no objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a sufficient cause for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section

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

RAJESH PRAJAPATI ,UJJAIN vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hereby condone the delay in filing present appeal and proceed to adjudicate on merits. GROUND NO. 1: 7. In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 44,32,850/- made by the AO out of deduction of interest expenditure claimed by assessee u/s 36(1)(iii). Page

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

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055303506(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

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

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DEWAS vs. ITO DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ito 105, Agra Mumbai Road, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abopa3336J Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

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 present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,60,670/- which was assessed by AO through