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

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

u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order Rajesh Kumar Rathore 6 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 dated 25.09.2023, which was admittedly appealable up to 23.10.2023. The delay has been attributed to the appellant's lack of education and unawareness of the reassessment proceedings initiated under

GIRIRAJIJI RAGHUNANDAN SHIKSHA PRASAR AND VIKAS SAMITI ,INDORE vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act in the case of the appellant for assessment year 2009-10 without

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

147 r.w.s. 144of the Act. Therefore, there has been a delay of 628 days in filing the appeal. The appellant in Form No. 35 has attributed delay in filing appeal due to delay at the end of the tax consultant. The relevant extract of the appellant with respect to condonation of delay is reproduced as under:- "The appellant

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

reassessment in pursuance thereof u/s. 147 of the Act, merely on guess work, conjectures and surmises, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, improper, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in determining the total income

ACIT1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

ACIT(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

THE ACIT 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

ACIT 1( 1 ), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act as invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order by computing period of limitation which was different from that laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Hon'ble High Court can over-ride the time

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act the assesee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.61,87,661/- . Additions were made to his returned income of Rs.9,96,870/-. That aforesaid

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on the basis of information available in Annual Information Return (AIR) revealing that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 75,52,500/- in SB A/c No. 076601501323 with ICICI Bank, Rajgarh during the financial year 2013- 14 relevant

SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the assesee’s total income was computed at Rs.61,52,020/-. Additions were made to the return of income. That the assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- Page 3 of 9 Sanjay Kumar Bomb

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return to department u/s 139 or even in response to notice u/s 148 because the assessee

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. On merit of the case, Ld. AR made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed assessee’s first-appeal. That, the assessee has not filed any return to department u/s 139 or even in response to notice u/s 148 because the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 31,92,474/-. Variation in respect of addition u/s 45 was at Rs. 24,79,657/- & variation in respect of addition u/s 56 was at Rs. 7,12,817/-. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050379287(1) & that the same