SHRI VIJAY TONDON,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 93/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Tondon, H.No.34, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar Road, Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Abupt1550H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section from the income from Capital gains. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the above sum of Rs.85,00,000/-, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for A.Y 2013-14 by reason of the failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for AY 2013-14. Raipur (Amrit Kumar

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

144 of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, I propose to suitable revise the order u/s 263, which may include setting aside the order as such. Accordingly, an opportunity is being extended

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

144 of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, I propose to suitable revise the order u/s 263, which may include setting aside the order as such. Accordingly, an opportunity is being extended

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains for taxation, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case under section 148 of the Act. The assessee had not ensured any compliance during the re-opened assessment proceedings; therefore, the Ld. AO taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,46,500/- of the immovable property along with interest of Rs.13,973/- getting reflected in Form

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains for taxation, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case under section 148 of the Act. The assessee had not ensured any compliance during the re-opened assessment proceedings; therefore, the Ld. AO taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,46,500/- of the immovable property along with interest of Rs.13,973/- getting reflected in Form

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains for taxation, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case under section 148 of the Act. The assessee had not ensured any compliance during the re-opened assessment proceedings; therefore, the Ld. AO taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,46,500/- of the immovable property along with interest of Rs.13,973/- getting reflected in Form

SUNITHA NAIR, PALAKKAD,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O also observed that since no details in respect of purchase of the subject property were available, therefore, no deduction for cost of acquisition was allowed. Accordingly, the A.O calculated the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as under: “Sale Consideration : Rs.45,00,000/- Assessee’s share of sale consideration : Rs.22,50,000/- Indexed

THE DY. CIT-1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. RAKESH SARAOGI & SONI (HUF),, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Capital Gains from the sale of the impugned scrips was treated as income from undisclosed sources. 11. In his statement and the related enquiries, there is nothing on record to suggest that the brokers have given accommodation entries to the assessee. Nor there is any reference to the transactions done by the assessee. The A.O. has simply presumed that

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI SURESH ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI TARAL MODI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. ABHISHEK ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

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

Section 145(3) of the Act. The A.O after rejecting the books of 9 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai accounts of the assessee proceeded with to assess its income in the manner provided in Sec. 144 of the Act and made the following additions/disallowances:- S. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Disallowance of the excess

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.268/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.)

144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 30-03-2022 by making additions viz. (i) addition on 5 ITO-1(3), Bhilai Vs. Ramandeep Singh Sohi account of bogus LTCG u/s.69A of the Act : Rs.26,41,000/-; and (ii) addition u/s.69C of the Act for commission paid for accommodation entry: Rs.1,32,500/- and determining total income of the assessee

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 28.12.2018. 2 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, reads as under: 1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner (appeals) is arbitrary and illegal and against the principal of natural justice. 2. For the reason that

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd & 3rd ground, legal grounds, challenge the validity of reopening of assessment

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK FARMS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK ESTATE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA HUF, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

capital gain. The A.O. after recording his findings finally held as follows: 3. In this background, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had held and observed as follows: “7.3 Decision: I have carefully examined the assessment order and the written submission filed by the assessee. The remand report was requisitioned from the AO on 07.11.2025 but the AO has not submitted

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 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’).

Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd ground, a legal ground, challenges the validity of reopening of assessment