KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1,RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Section 250 of the Act. 14. Before parting with, we may herein observe that as the matter in present case pertains to bogus purchases/ sham transactions, the observations of this tribunal in the case of Subedar Pathak vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, in ITA No. 338/RPR/2025 Dated 09.06.2025, would be relevant, the same therefore, are extracted hereunder

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

10% of Rs.2,87,51,400/-) and agree to pay tax on the said amount." 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was specifically required to prove that the purchase bills are genuine and that he has actually purchased the items reflected in the bills. This was more particularly so, because in all such cases where bogus purchase

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

10% of Rs.2,87,51,400/-) and agree to pay tax on the said amount." 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was specifically required to prove that the purchase bills are genuine and that he has actually purchased the items reflected in the bills. This was more particularly so, because in all such cases where bogus purchase

RAVI KEDIA, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR, BALODA BAZAR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 111/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Kedia, Ekdand Chawal Udyog, Village Risda, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493 332 Pan : Ajrpk5750D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

26,300/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee had come up with three pronged contentions, viz. (i). that addition

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)

26, it has been held as under : “38. Even in the instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the DIT (lnvestigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with sole purpose of lending entries. But it is unfortunate that all this exercise is going in vain as few more steps which should have been taken

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus or inflated bills. 26. We, hereby, also take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order dated 22.10.2018 in Paragraph 25, wherein, while affirming the deletion of additions vide order of the CIT (A), it was held as under:- 8 Anil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (Central), Bilaspur ITA Nos.584 & 585/RPR/2025 “25. We find although the Assessing

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus or inflated bills. 26. We, hereby, also take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order dated 22.10.2018 in Paragraph 25, wherein, while affirming the deletion of additions vide order of the CIT (A), it was held as under:- 8 Anil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (Central), Bilaspur ITA Nos.584 & 585/RPR/2025 “25. We find although the Assessing

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 379/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

purchase to the tune of Rs.2,29,87,000/-, from Shri Deepak Nanjyani during FY 2014-15. 4. Based on aforesaid information, notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee had not filed his submissions. Thereafter, an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.07.2022 and notice u/s.148

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

10. Although, as observed by me hereinabove, the deposit in tranches of the demonetized currency notes by the assessee in her bank account, i.e, after lapse of the specified time period allowed by the Central Government though raises serious doubts, but the same in my considered view would by no means suffice for stamping the same as the assessee

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase- 4,04,56,014/- para-14 Bogus cash credit u/s.68-para-15 4,82,814/- Unexplained cash credit-para-16 10,00,000/- Unrecorded work receipts-para-17 27,88,260/- Unrecorded income from car sale- 8,10,000/- para-18 Unexplained Expenditure u/s.69C- 1,60,000/- para-19 Unrecorded interest receipt-para- 1,59,000/- 20 Unexplained cash credit u/s.68-

GAJRAJ GIRI, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases which resulted in suppressed income - Assessee did not respond to said notice nor requested for 'extension of time -Consequently, Assessing Officer held that he had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and passed order dated 26-3-2022 under section 148A(d) for reopening assessment - Assessee challenged said reopening notice on ground that its application dated