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.)

Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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.)

Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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.)

Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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.)

Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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.)

Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

47,07,640/- made by the AO on account of suppression in yield?" 4. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the affirmation on oath in statements recorded u/s 131 of the I. T. Act by the proprietors of the concerns/brokers during investigation by the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, the addition under section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BALAJI RICE INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified"? 5. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s. 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 1,43,22,138/- out of total addition made

MESERS BALAJI RICE INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified"? 5. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s. 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 1,43,22,138/- out of total addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS SATYANARAYAN NATHULAL, TILDA-NEORA

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

47,07,70,051.00 out of which your honor pointed out that the name of some selling dealer is placed on the purchase list submitted on 28.11.2016 as per Annexure "11-44" to "11-47" amounting to Rs.16,69,05,000.00 as a 'suspicious dealer i.e. a person who is suspected for issuing fake bills without selling the goods

UMESH KUMAR PANDEY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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: 42/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2021-22)

bogus purchases, it is not necessary that entire amount should be added to the Income of the Assessee as there cannot be a sale without purchase. The facts of the present case are identical wherein the sales have been accepted. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decisions first question of law does not survive for consideration." 3. In the light

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)

47,34,855/-, which comes to Rs.8,84,092/-. Assessee also furnished before the Ld. AO, the details regarding M/s Pratyush Steels such as copy of ITR, copy of GST return, copy of stock register of M/s Pratyush Steels, evidence of mode of purchase and utilization of the purchases, copy of Invoice of Ms Pratyush Steels for purchase made were

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchases as a camouflage of his unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 11. As multiple issues are involved in the present appeal, therefore, the same are being deliberated upon and dealt with by us in a chronological manner, as under: A). Re: Re-characterization by the A.O of unsecured loans claimed by the assessee to have been received from

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

47) of the I-T Act. It will be treated as transfer in the year in which capital asset is converted into stock-in-trade of the firm M/s Singhania Goel Buildcon. The above lands were transferred to the firm for the purpose of developing colony and plotting of land and it's consequential sale. For the said purpose

DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

section 10(38) of the Act. We find that assessee has purchased the shares through off market deal and therefore such transaction for purchase of shares by the assessee ought not to have been registered with the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Secondly, the Voucher for shares sold to the assessee issued by M/s Badri Prasad & Sons, broker of the Calcutta Stock

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 :

section 142(1) along with query letter was issued on 04/10/2019 & 02/11/2019 The assessee was queried to explain the sources of his investment made during the financial year 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 and justify the same with documentary evidence. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various banks to furnish bank statements of the assessee. 3. The case of the assessee

SHRI SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

47, para no. 12, as under:- A bare reading of section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by assessees; that such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and that the assessees offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1984-85 - Whether purchases made by assesee had been found by all lower authorities to be bogus and not genuine, Assessing Officer was justified in adding amount of purchases towards its income - Held, yes The facts on records extracted from survey and assessment proceedings