PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

69A moreover adopting section 115BBE. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by CIT(A) on the ground of barred by limitation. He has pointed out that the brief reasons for delay were

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal as well as the first appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances presented, including the pandemic and issues with legal representation. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order on merits.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": ["253", "147", "144", "144B", "246A", "249", "153C", "69A

KALA JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

delay. Accordingly we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal. Appeal taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted before this tribunal that the\nassessee is in the business of grocery/grocery store at\nMarothiya Bazar, Indore which is run in the name and style of\nM/s Roopchand Kishanlal Kirana Merchant. The assessee's\nsource of income is from

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

Appeal is partly allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitted the appeal, and held that the addition made by the AO of Rs.16,69,500/- was unwarranted as the assessee had offered income of Rs.93,925/- as per Section 44AF, which was below the tax liability threshold.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A

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

LAL SAHAB CHOUREY,HOSHANGABAD, M.P. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS/ NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

69A without providing the Assessee/Applellant proper opportunity of hearing and presenting its case. 5. The appellant craves permission to raise additional grounds and to amend or alter the foregoing ground before the appeal is finally decided." 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 16.06.2025 when

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

section 69A may\nkindly be deleted.\n4. That, the Hon'ble AddI / JCIT(Appeal), Faridabad has\nerred in rejecting the documentary evidence filed during\nthe appellant proceedings treating the same as\nadditional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax\nRules, 1962 and has further erred in appreciating the\nfacts on record that some documentary evidences were\nalready filed before

AVDHESH,PATEL NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation and the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte assessment order, the new evidence submitted, and the fact that the assessee possessed two PANs.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A

VIPUL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivipul Jain Ito, 5(2) 18, Ganesh Colony, Rambag Indore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpj8206E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2024

delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That on the facts

TILAK KUMAR MALVIYA,JHABUA vs. ITO-2, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the Rs. 15,00,000/- entry was a bank error, wrongly credited and immediately reversed, and thus could not be treated as unexplained income. The balance of Rs. 1,95,447/- was accepted as regular income from the photo studio.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A

HIRAMANI AJIT KUMAR JAIN,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law and also in breach of principle of natural justice. 1.1 That the action of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad

SHAFIQUE MOHAMMAD,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Shafique Mohammad, Ito-3(1) Hno.40, Rahat Manzil, Bhopal Street No.2, Noor Mahal, बनाम/ Imamigate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ctppm6867D Assessee By Ms. Sania Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

section 148 are bad in law and invalid. Ground 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case cash deposited of Rs. 11,15,000 during the relevant assessment year is out of his business income of sweets and past savings of Rs. 3,05,000 and the rest amount was cash gift received from his brothers and sister

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

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

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

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/250/2023- 24/1055303221(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeding for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the revenue received an information from AIR that the assessee had made cash-deposit over Rs. 10 lack in bank account during F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the AY 2009-10 under consideration. Ld. AO formed a belief that the impugned cash