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.)

2(c)(i), of Section 147 of the Act, as was then available on the statute, the same was applicable in a case where an assessment had been made but income chargeable to tax was underassessed. Apart from that, we find that the A.O while recording the “reasons to believe”, had at the threshold stated that scrutiny assessment

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.)

2(c)(i), of Section 147 of the Act, as was then available on the statute, the same was applicable in a case where an assessment had been made but income chargeable to tax was underassessed. Apart from that, we find that the A.O while recording the “reasons to believe”, had at the threshold stated that scrutiny assessment

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.)

2(c)(i), of Section 147 of the Act, as was then available on the statute, the same was applicable in a case where an assessment had been made but income chargeable to tax was underassessed. Apart from that, we find that the A.O while recording the “reasons to believe”, had at the threshold stated that scrutiny assessment

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.)

2(c)(i), of Section 147 of the Act, as was then available on the statute, the same was applicable in a case where an assessment had been made but income chargeable to tax was underassessed. Apart from that, we find that the A.O while recording the “reasons to believe”, had at the threshold stated that scrutiny assessment

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.)

2(c)(i), of Section 147 of the Act, as was then available on the statute, the same was applicable in a case where an assessment had been made but income chargeable to tax was underassessed. Apart from that, we find that the A.O while recording the “reasons to believe”, had at the threshold stated that scrutiny assessment

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)

bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee's income at Rs. 5,43,80,670/-. 4. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partly vide its order dated 19th May, 2015. The Appellate Authority held that payments made by the assessee were through banking channels and that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 5. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,37,29,238/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 5. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,37,29,238/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

2% of the bogus purchases may be added to the total income. The High Court further observed if that was the factual position it was incumbent upon the AO to take the proceedings to their logical end and having not done so, the 8 DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Tirupati Balaji Foods Private Limited PCIT was fully justified in exercising

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

11. At the outset, Ld. Sr. DR on the aforesaid issue has reiterated the facts on para 7 of the Assessment order according to which the observations of the Ld. AO while making such addition were as under: 7. During the course of scrutiny, verification reveals that Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri Deepak Raheja are directors of the assessee company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

11. At the outset, Ld. Sr. DR on the aforesaid issue has reiterated the facts on para 7 of the Assessment order according to which the observations of the Ld. AO while making such addition were as under: 7. During the course of scrutiny, verification reveals that Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri Deepak Raheja are directors of the assessee company

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.

Section 131 of the Act that they never owned or operated any mill/godown or never owned any stock in 16 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur ITA Nos.117 &118/RPR/2024 order to carry out any sale and purchase of goods. Their only work was to provide bogus bills to rice traders and millers. Therefore

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.

Section 131 of the Act that they never owned or operated any mill/godown or never owned any stock in 16 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur ITA Nos.117 &118/RPR/2024 order to carry out any sale and purchase of goods. Their only work was to provide bogus bills to rice traders and millers. Therefore

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act and in rejecting the books of Accounts of the appellant on the basis of statement recorded by Jt. CIT, Range -1 during a survey operation u/s.133A in the case of third /unrelated/unconnected persons and by using such statements behind the back of the Appellant, without giving any opportunity of rebutting and cross-examining

ROSHAN LAL AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-3, KORBA (C.G.)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Roshan Lal Agrawal Agrawal Rice Mill, Korba, Champa Road, Pahanda, Dist. Korba (C.G.)-495 677 Pan: Abapa0839N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

2. M/s. Shubh Laxmi Traders, Raipur 12,42,250/- Total 22,78,200/- In order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, the A.O though issued notice(s) u/s.133(6) of the Act to both the aforementioned parties on 26.11.2018 but the same were returned by the postal authority with remark “Not Known” of this address. Considering

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

11 Ravi Kedia Vs. ITO, Ward- Bhatapara substantiates the in genuineness/unverifiability of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the said party. Considering the aforesaid factual position, I concur with view taken by the A.O that as the books of accounts of the assessee did not inspire much of confidence as regards its correctness, therefore

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.

11-13 of the above referred order, the disallowance of 25 of the bogus purchases which clearly applies to the present case also. Accordingly, the submission of the assessee is not accepted and 25% of such purchase expenses of the assessee are not allowed on account of bogus purchases. The facts mentioned above reveals the said amounts of bogus purchase

SHIV TRADING CO., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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.101/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shiv Trading Co. Saranggarh Road, Chhatamuda Chowk, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaqfs3990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C of the income tax act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.26,88,000/- made on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the disallowance was made mechanically without considering the evidences furnished by the assessee and also without rejecting the books of account. 3 Without prejudice to Ground No.1 & 2 above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI VINAY AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

bogus purchases @ 8% which comes to Rs.7,31,000/- (8% of Rs.91,37,500/-) and the extra profit shown by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 for Rs.2,79,600/- was reduced from the aforesaid estimated profit, accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,51,400/- (7,31,000 – 2,79,600) was sustained