ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

cash in lieu of the immovable assets. Therefore, when a partner retires from a partnership and his share in the net partnership assets is determined and allotted to him, what he receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in the partnership to the continuing partners. His share in the partnership

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

reassessments u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on the issue of deposit of Rs. 17,00,000/- in bank a/c whereas the CIT(E) has initiated revisionary-action by alleging AO’s lack of examination qua the issue of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Thus, the issue raised by CIT(E) is clearly beyond the scope of re-assessment proceeding in which

SMT. ARCHANA CHANDAK,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal isallowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 of the Income tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") wherein the assessment of total income was made as under: Particulars Amount Commission Income Rs. 2,190/- Addition to Income on account of Rs. 27,57.710- unexplained Cash Deposit in Banks u/s 68 of the Act Total Income Assessed Rs.27,59,900/- Regarding wrongAddition on account

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

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

cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both

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

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

cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated Page 2 of 15 M/s. Goutam Medicose. ITA Nos. 709 & 710/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2015-16 penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

cash deposits stated above, the amount aggregating Rs. 3,45,00,000/- is to be disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

cash during demonetization period by way of issue letters for SBN deposits, secondly in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and lastly under reassessment proceedings u/s 144B r.w.s. 147

LATE SMT. MARIAM BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI ABDUL RAZAK CHARA),INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 merely for verification of cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant even when no income chargeable to tax had escaped from assessment and in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income merely on the basis of borrowed opinion without independent application of mind. 4. That

SMT. SHARMILA DEVI DUNGARWAL,NEEMUCH vs. THE ITO, NEEMUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

deposited cash of Rs.17,92,600/- in the saving bank account of Union Bank of India, Neemuch Branch. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

BAJRANG LAL,UJJAIN, M.P. vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023 framed by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.634&637/Ind/2024 Bajrang Lal – A.Y 2017-18 “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, notice dated 27-07-2022 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Local

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 22,04,600/-. The total income as per the return of the income was at Rs.1,02,100/-. The addition of Rs.22,04,600/- was made as unexplained deposit. The aforesaid Assessment order is dated 21.12.2016 [PAN No. AJTPT 6475G

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

u/s 147 on the basis of the AR information regarding the cash deposit of Rs.36,03,600/- in the savings bank account of the assessee. Since there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was framed ex-parte as best judgment assessment thereby the Assessing Officer has assessed

RUPESH JAISWAL,DHARAMPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The revenue basis verification of ITBA details of the assessee had found that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.2,07,70,475/- and had made cash withdrawal of Rs.1,31,98,000/- during the financial year

LOKESH GHIYA,NAGDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilokesh Ghiya Ito 27, Government Colony Nagda Ujjain Vs. M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aoipg2695D Assessee By Shri Amit Choudhary Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2024

u/s 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act. It is not the case that the assessee has filed a return of income declaring business income and the turnover declared by the assessee could be considered as source of deposit in the bank account so far as the cash sales in the total turnover declared by Page 3 of 7 ITANo.504/Ind/2023

ASHISH GEHLOT,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Ashish Gehlot Ito-4(2) 177, Radio Colony Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Amopg1266A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024

reassessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 on 20.03.2019 for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of cash deposit of Rs.32,80,000/- in the bank account of the assessee as per the information available in AIR/CIB data. There was no response to the notices issued by the AO and consequently the AO has passed ex-part order u/s