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

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

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

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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 hardship and the genuine inability to present evidence

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

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

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

BHARAT SINGH PAWAR ,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Bharat Singh Pawar, Income-Tax Officer, Gram Chorana, Ward 1, बनाम/ Post Nau Gaon, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bnxpp4510K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- i. The ld. NFAC was not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec 147 was illegal, void, in breach of principle of natural justice. ii. That

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal in ITANo.53/Ind/2024 and the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds in quantum appeal: “1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio. barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal in ITANo.53/Ind/2024 and the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds in quantum appeal: “1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio. barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

69A. Therefore, above Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- being arbitrary and unlawful deserves to be deleted. 07.That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C is illegal and unsustainable in law and, therefore, be cancelled. 08. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds and/or make amendment