MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of 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 deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of 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 deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

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

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

67,956/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on fact & 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, during investigation

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

67,956/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on fact & 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, during investigation

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.

purchased from the aforesaid parties. This fact is also supported by 9 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur ITA Nos.117 &118/RPR/2024 the statement of bogus supplier parties who have categorically admitted that they did not own any stock or godown. 6.1 Legal position with regard to establishing 'Burden of Proof': The term 'Burden of Proof

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.

purchased from the aforesaid parties. This fact is also supported by 9 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur ITA Nos.117 &118/RPR/2024 the statement of bogus supplier parties who have categorically admitted that they did not own any stock or godown. 6.1 Legal position with regard to establishing 'Burden of Proof': The term 'Burden of Proof

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

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

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (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 of Rs.1,87,90,375/- during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17 from Shri Deepak Nanjyani. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.07.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked

SHREE SHYAM SALES CORPORATION,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), RAIPUR. (C.G.), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

bogus purchase treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Rs.1,23,97,06,013/- and 4 Shree Shyam Sales Corporation vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur the total assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,23,98,67,719/-. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings enhancing the income of assessee

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

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.)

67 taxmann.com 278/386 ITR 702. (Kar.). 8. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the Revenue authorities. She submits that as per facts when the assessee was providing bogus purchase and sales bills definitely he would not do it for free and accordingly, has earned commission for providing such services. She vehemently supported the addition made

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.)

67 taxmann.com 278/386 ITR 702. (Kar.). 8. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the Revenue authorities. She submits that as per facts when the assessee was providing bogus purchase and sales bills definitely he would not do it for free and accordingly, has earned commission for providing such services. She vehemently supported the addition made

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)

bogus purchase of Rs. 4,57,79,434/- transacted with M/s Abhishek Enterprises and M/s Pratyush Steels. The case of assessee was subsequently, examined by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Central, Bhopal, thereby certain issues were emerged, which in the opinion of Ld. PCIT are to be 3 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.169 & 179/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Acit-2, Raipur Vs Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Shri Shyam Tower, Kavita Nagar, Main Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Pan No. : Afdpa 6944 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section (3) of Sec. 145 of the Act, before rejecting the books of accounts of an assessee. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185 (P&H). In its aforesaid order the Hon’ble High Court while upholding