VIJAY KUMAR CHHATTANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Chhattani, S.S.D. Agro Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Afapc4410R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

purchase amount works out at Rs.49,03,125/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction shown to have been made with different bogus firms. The 5 Vijay Kumar Chhattani Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Raipur assessee has furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income, Penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SMITA MUKESH KEDIA, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 451/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

bogus purchases is also deleted. Ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal are allowed. Further, since the additions made by AO are deleted, therefore, reworking of net profit u/s 44AD made by the AO has also become irrelevant and unwarranted and the same is therefore annulled and accordingly, the profit of the appellant as declared by the appellant

SANJAY GRAIN PRODUCTS(P) LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 293/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjay Grain Products (P) Ltd. 34-35, Adishwar Complex, Ram Nagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcs5038G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.10,99,88,000/-, must have invested its unaccounted income, which was being rolled into its business activities. Accordingly, the A.O., on the basis of his aforesaid conviction, made a further addition of the peak amount of purchases that were made by the assessee from the aforementioned bogus/tainted concerns of Rs. 9,62,000/-. Accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

bogus in nature.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR contended that some of the parties from whom purchases claimed having done were not found at the given addresses by the Verification Unit who was verifying their physical presence on reference of the Ld. AO. The physical verification, under the faceless scheme of the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1),BHILAI, BHILAI vs. ASHISH GUPTA, DURG

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

bogus dealer and the beneficiary is identified as Ganapati Wires, Prop Shri Ashish Gupta, the assessee.” Accordingly, the A.O made the following additions: “6. For the reason discussed above, for inflating the above purchases, the said amount of Rs.5,52,334/- is added to the total income u/s.69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure. Penalty

SAKET PRODUCTS AND ROLLING MILL PVT. LTD., SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 840/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saket Products & Rolling Mill Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Private Limited, Aykar Bhawan, Kharsia Road, Subhash Marg, Bhaiyathan Road, Ambikapur, C. G., 497001 Surajpur, Surguja (C.G.) 497229 Pan: Aajcs2709N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement

bogus purchase and sale bills without any actual sale / purchase of goods, which was unearthed by the Investigation wing. It establishes that the assessee company is a beneficiary and had obtained accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 38,00,000/-, It establishes that the information has a direct bearing on your income as they failed establish that they actually

RAJESH CHIMNANI L/H LATE SHRI SUDHAM CHAND CHIMNANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.79/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Chimnani, L/H. Late Shri Sudham Chand Chimnani, B-17/7, Near Pani Tanki, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Acfpc0343R

bogus purchases, income of the assessee was determined at Rs.98,15,940/-. 4. On appeal before the first appellate authority, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC who set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restored the matter back to his file with the direction to frame the assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR vs. KANHA GRAIN PROCESS, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward 1(2), Raipur Kanha Grain Process Vs. Station Road, Tilda Neora, Raipur – 493114 Pan: Aaifk3222G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Revenue agreed that the notice issued for the A.Y. 2015-16, between

BAJRANG LAL AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of depreciation of Rs.4,22,463/- and brought the same to tax as his unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to put up an appearance

FAKIR CHAND AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 61/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fakir Chand Agrawal Plot No. 22 & 23, Anjani Rani Durgavati, Industrial Area, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aezpa7821C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1. ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.1,04,85,751/- as an unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s.69C of the Act and computed the consequential tax liability as per provisions of Section 4 Fakir Chand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 115BBE of the Act, therefore, having failed to do so his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 25.12.2019 was erroneous

C.G. ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed for fresh adjudication in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S.C.G.Ispat Pvt.Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner- Raipur Gram Bahesar, Of Income Tax, Near Siltara Industrial Area, Circle-1(1), Raipur, Raipur. Chhattisgarh-492 001. [Pan: Aaccc 4876 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

penalty order. Under such circumstances, the act of passing of appellate order come to knowledge and therefore, it was requested that the delay caused may be condoned and appeal may kindly be admitted. Since, as explained by the employee of the company signed by Mr. Bijendra Kumar Chandrakar, that it was an inadvertent mistake on his part that there were

GURMUKH DAS GANGWANI, BHATAPARA,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases and worked out an addition of Rs.20,43,750/- (25% of Rs.81,75,000/-). As the assessee had already declared Rs.10,67,300/- under the IDS 2016, therefore, the A.O restricted the addition qua the differential amount of Rs.9,76,450/- [Rs.20,43,750/- (-) Rs.10,67,300/-]. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated

KIRAN AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

bogus purchases and further, grossly erred in treating the 'expenditure' as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. Further, the appellant had duly filed all the requisite details and information in respect of the alleged purchaser and merely for the reason that qualitative & quantitative details of goods traded were not furnished which were in fact

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

purchase remains unexplained at the end of the assessee. 4.1 In the instant case the assessee company has failed to furnish any details or explanation with respect to unexplained cash credit in his books of accounts failed to explain the bogus sales made by him during the year under consideration and hence required to be taxed

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

purchase remains unexplained at the end of the assessee. 4.1 In the instant case the assessee company has failed to furnish any details or explanation with respect to unexplained cash credit in his books of accounts failed to explain the bogus sales made by him during the year under consideration and hence required to be taxed

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish