MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. JAVA BUILDERS PVT LTD(FORMERLY JAVA FOODS PVT LTD), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

3 of 15 Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 279/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The penalty notice u/s 274 is being reproduced as under:- Hence, it is clear from the perusal of the above notice u/s 274 of the Act that not only has the AO not specified whether the penalty proposed

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

92,826/- and gross expenditure at Rs.39,63,67,098/- and capital expenditure at Rs.21,22,84,057/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also observed that in the balance sheet under the head corpus funds a sum of Rs.14,06,75,754/- was shown to be received as donation during the year towards corpus funds. Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

92,826/- and gross expenditure at Rs.39,63,67,098/- and capital expenditure at Rs.21,22,84,057/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also observed that in the balance sheet under the head corpus funds a sum of Rs.14,06,75,754/- was shown to be received as donation during the year towards corpus funds. Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

271(1)(c) and consulted with a different\ncounsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know\nthat the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately\nthereafter, the assessee arranged to file these appeals on 03.07.2023 alongwith\nappeals in penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of\nassessee

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AACCS0399D Assessee by Shri Anil Khabya, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-NFAC

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.91,76,957/- without considering the full facts and legal position. (3)That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing. ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 6. We have heard the learned authorise representative of the assessee

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.91,76,957/- without considering the full facts and legal position. (3)That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing. ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 6. We have heard the learned authorise representative of the assessee

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.91,76,957/- without considering the full facts and legal position. (3)That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing. ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 6. We have heard the learned authorise representative of the assessee

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.91,76,957/- without considering the full facts and legal position. (3)That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing. ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 6. We have heard the learned authorise representative of the assessee

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.91,76,957/- without considering the full facts and legal position. (3)That the appellant craves to leave add alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing. ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 6. We have heard the learned authorise representative of the assessee

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

Appeals are dismissed

penalty\nunder section 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

penalty\nunder section 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

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

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 03.02.2022 is being initiated.” 5.5 It is manifest from the assessment order that the same was passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee vide acknowledgment dated 28.02.2022 as well as without considering