M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income is declared as result of search was not recorded in books of accounts before the date of search. We find that the penalty notices under section 274 read with section 271 (l)(c) were Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. issued in the cyclostyled format without the striking off either of the two charges i.e. "concealment

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

undisclosed sources, I therefore, added back unexplained investment of Rs.2,14,58,000/- in his income u/s 60 read with section115BBE of the Act which is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee and failed to furnish source of investment as discussed.” Page 3 of 12 Sheetal Nath Colonizers ITA No. 1094/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 2.4 That the aforesaid

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

delay is not condoned. 1.1 It was proved before the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC that the notices and order were not received by the assessee and were returned back with the remark that the assessee has moved. Since there was proper service of the notice, the assessment framed was bad in law. The assessee did not receive the assessment order

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

delay is not condoned. 1.1 It was proved before the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC that the notices and order were not received by the assessee and were returned back with the remark that the assessee has moved. Since there was proper service of the notice, the assessment framed was bad in law. The assessee did not receive the assessment order

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

condone the delay & the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that his brief synopsis cum written statement containing three pages wherein proper correlation is made with the paper book filed be taken into consideration. The sheet anchor of the Ld. AR argument was that during the relevant period, the assessee had sold the shares

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as filed within limitation. 5. In the case of assessee the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.10

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 8,73,380/-. The case was selected under scrutiny

MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

undisclosed stock of Rs. 71,19/- in silver items and Rs. 2,62,96,239/- in gold items totalling to Rs 2,63,67,438/-. However, the appellant in the return of income disclosed excess stock at Rs. 2,46,94,865/-. The AO gave the opportunity to explain this difference of Rs. 16,72,573/-. The appellant stated that

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

undisclosed sources which has escaped assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee for the purpose of determination of total income, the provisions of section 144 of the I.T. Act needs to be invoked”. Page 4 of 13 Sandeep Kumar Yadav ITA No. 501/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 2.6 That

NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Undisclosed Salary Income- Rs. 4,80,000/- 03. The Id. CIT (Appeal) has ignored/overlooked to consider the evidences and explanation furnished by the appellant and as such entire order has become arbitrary and baseless which deserves to be quashed. 04. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that when the department

HARI SINGH,RAISEN vs. ITO RAISEN, RAISEN

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

undisclosed sources of income and not been offered for taxation. Thus the same is required to be added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration.” Page 3 of 14 Hari Singh ITA No. 536/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2012-13 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated 22.05.2023 the assessee’s total income was determined/computed at Rs.33,29,641/- in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The aforesaid assessment order

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj’. For AY 2011-12, the assessee did not file any return. The AO, on the basis of information

SHRI ISLAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (5), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Income Tax(Appeal)-2 Indore for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assesse has filed present appeal on 31.03.2023 against the impugned order dated 20.01.2020 therefore, there is a delay of about three years in filing the present appeal. The assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assesse

RAJENDRA KUMAR PATIDAR,C/O. CA. RAJESH HEERALAL MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, IRRIGATION COLONY

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradshri Rajendra Kumar Patidar, Income Tax Officer, 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Shajapur 11, Rnt Marg, Vs. Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqlpp9145L Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2 Rajendra Kumar Patidar “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ujjain ("the Ld. CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,41,500/- made

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. “1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance made by CPC,IT Department Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 154 without providing any opportunity to object the proposed rectification on account of cash payments to MPPKVVCL (a government