RSRG DEVBUILD P. LTD,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 271(1)(c) is consequential to\nthe addition made in assessment-order, this matter should also be\nremanded back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on the basis of\noutcome of Quantum-Appeal.\n4.\nLd. DR for revenue agrees to the submission of Ld. AR.\n5.\nIn view of above submissions-cum-consensus of parties

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

144B of the IT Act. Charge interst as per provision of IT Act. Issue requisite documents alongwith copy of this order. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 as discussed above is being initiated. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

144B of the IT Act. Charge interst as per provision of IT Act. Issue requisite documents alongwith copy of this order. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 as discussed above is being initiated. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated

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

271(1)(b) and/or exparte decision on the basis of available material only. It also brightens the chance against levy of concealment penalty. Exparte assessment order has its own limitations as to its scope and extent. Hence the assessee should not be allowed to be enriched or benefited unjustly for act of his own wrong doings, i.e. non- compliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and U/s 271F of the Act was initiated\n5.1. On going through the aforesaid submission of the assessee it\ncan be seen that the assessee has stated that the trust was\nreceiving corpus donations for construction of Dharamshala and\nevidence of the donation and trust registration had been\nsubmitted. However, it can be seen that

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 of the act which is bad in law. Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 3. The Assessee was passed away during the assessment proceedings and response was made by legal representative even then the Assessment proceedings was continued in the name of deceased assessee and Order was also made in the name of deceased person which

INCOMETAX OFFICER-1(4), INDORE vs. LATE SHRI SASMIT VYAS L/H MS. ANSHU VYAS, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act"], for three (3) Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16.\n4. Ld. AR for assessee referred assessment-orders and pointed out that the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 vide notices dated 30.03.2021 but thereafter the assessee “Shri Sasmit Vyas” expired on 02.06.2021 and the representation could not have been made before

LATE SHRI SASMIT VYAS L/H MS. ANSHU VYAS,ORIENTAL COMPLEX vs. WARD1(4), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) which are dependent on outcome of\nQuantum-Appeals. Since the Quantum-Appeals are being remanded to AO\nin earlier part of this order, these matters must also be remanded to AO for\nadjudication afresh after considering outcome of Quantum-Appeals and also\nconsidering submissions of assessee. We accept submissions and\naccordingly remand these matters

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ WARSI,PIPARIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the Impugned order is set aside as and by way\nof a remand back to the file of the Ld

section 253 of\nthe income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act\nfor the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a\nsecond Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order\nbearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073837035\n(1) dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the\nAct, which is herein after referred

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

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

144B of the act, the total income of the assessee was computed and assessed at Rs. 6,96,510/-. The total income as per the return of income (ROI) was at Rs. 5, 18,810/-. The addition of Rs. 1,77,700/- was made u/s 69 as unexplained investment. That the aforesaid assessment order bears no:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042316063(1) and that

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

144B of the Act, total income of the assessee was computed and assessed at Rs.2,14,58,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. NIL on 31.10.2013 electronically. 2.2 In the aforesaid assessment order it is recorded as under:- “It is noticed that the assessee

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s\n144 of the Act.\n4.11 Moving forward we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) in the\n“Impugned Order” has observed & recorded as follows amongst\nothers:-\n“4.2 The appellant has also admitted that in response to notices u/s\n142(1) of the Act and show cause notice thereafter, partial response\nwere submitted

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Penalty proceedings\nu/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.”\n2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s\nPage 3 of 13\nKhojema Bohra\nITA No. 812 & 814/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14\n246A of the Act before

INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE vs. VISHNU KUMAR PALOD , INDORE

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-years [“AYs”] 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16, the revenue has filed captioned three (3) appeals and the assessee has filed captioned three (3) cross-objections. 2. At the start of hearing, learned Representatives of both sides agree that the underlying facts and controversies involved in these cases

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. VISHNU KUMAR PALOD, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-years [“AYs”] 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16, the revenue has filed captioned three (3) appeals and the assessee has filed captioned three (3) cross-objections. 2. At the start of hearing, learned Representatives of both sides agree that the underlying facts and controversies involved in these cases