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

unexplained money u/s 69A. 5 The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 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

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

condoning the delay in filing of appeal and consequently, also erred in not admitting such appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case. ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section

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

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual did not file any return of income of AY 2014-15. The AO, on the basis of information in his possession revealing cash payment of Rs. 11,15,000/- having been made

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

unexplained money u/s 69A. As per the 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

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

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making and Ld. CIT (A) in confirming addition

ZYKA MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice with respect to the impugned cases listed before us. On merits: ITA No. 580/Ind/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making

NIKITA GUPTA,ALIRAJPUR vs. ITO-2, RATLAM, RATLAM

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshinikita Gupta, Income Tax Officer-2, C/O Lb Gold, Ratlam Csa Marg, Vs. Alirajpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpg0456K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

condone the delay of 7 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only addition made is towards unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period. He submitted that Central Board of Direcrt Taxes (CBDT) vide Instruction No.3/2017 dated 21.02.2017 has 2 Nikita Gupta directed the revenue authorities that

SANJAY UPADHAYAY,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisanjay Upadhayay Ito-1 1/9/2004 Mig, Indra Nagar Ratlam Near Saint Stephens School Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aalpu0989K Assessee By Mrs. Nish Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2024

delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and NA applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the assessment Page 3 of 6 ITANo.68/Ind/2024 Sanjay Upadhayay order u/s 144which is contrary to the material on record and provisions

LAXMI SHARMA,DEWAS vs. THE ITO,W-1, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Laxmi Sharma, I.T.O., 59, Kalisindh Marg, Ward-1, बनाम/ Mandir Ke Samne, Dewas Sonkatch, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Eczps1069E Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta,Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

condoning delay and this appeal is proceeded for hearing. Page 2 of 4 Smt.Laxmi Sharma v. ITO,WD.1,Dewas Assessment year 2017-18 4. The case of assessee is such that during assessment-proceeding, the AO confronted the assessee as to the source of Rs. 11,10,000/- deposited in bank account during demonetization period. However, finding no response from

SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR,VIDISHA vs. ITO VIDISHA, VIDISHA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and working as a RTO agent. Income of Rs.1,59,410/- was declared in the return filed on 31.07.2011 for A.Y. 2011-12. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS Smt. Sanman singh Kirar

RAJESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajesh Mangal, Acit-3(1), बनाम/ 2/8, New Palasia, Indore Vs. Indore (Pan: Abwpm2674D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ayush Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and therefore, in the case of the appellant, the provisions of s.69A could not have validly been invoked. 5. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id. ACIT-3(1), Indore for maintaining the addition

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