DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act is initiated separately for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act is initiated separately. Penalty proceeding u/s 271B of the Act is initiated separately. 5. Final computation of taxable income: Page 7 of 12 Iliyas ITA No. 445/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Sl.No. Description Amount

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 1,11,38,732/-. The assessee was non filer. The addition/variation in respect of issue of cash deposit u/s 69A is at Rs1,11,38,732/-. The aforesaid Assessment order bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1062488084 (1) & that the same is dated 12.03.2024 which is herein after referred

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue