RAGHUBIR SINGH SISODIA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JANJGIR-CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 176/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Ward No.20, Near Sadar School, Daily Market, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Pin-495668 Pan : Bzmps8275F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 257 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 11. Adverting to the merits of the case, I find that it is the claim of the Ld. AR that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in law and facts of the case in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.7 lac as regards the cash deposits

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits in the bank accounts represented the sale proceeds of the assessee which were accounted by him in his books of account, thus, vacated the addition of Rs.5,22,81,663/- made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal

M/S DIVYANSH INFRA ESTATE PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited House No.44/487, Arihant Niwas, Satti Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcd7801J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 69 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, the relevant facts are that the assesse is engaged in the business of real estate and construction activities. The A.O during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the bank statement of the assessee that during the demonetization period Rs.50 lacs

PRIYANKA MODI,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

delay and condone the same. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 30.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs.2,98,250/-. Case of the assessee was, thereafter, selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act for examining the cash deposits

INDO LAHRI BIO POWER LTD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.529/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Indo Lahri Bio Power Limited 38, Saheed Smarak Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaaci9125K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

deposited as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 as the cash has been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. The addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT-Appeal is unjustified, unwarranted and - at uncalled for. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-Appeal

PARIMAL KARMAKAR,KANKER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- KANKER, KANKER

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.124/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Parimal Karmakar, C/O. Sharad Chandra Karmakar 148/A, Ward No.2, Old Market, Pakhanjur Colony, Pakhanjur, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) Pan : Aeypk1736P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kanker (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits of Rs.16,17,500/- in SBN in his bank account during the year under consideration, therefore, the A.O in absence of any explanation of the assessee held the said amount as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.144 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 determined the income

PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay involved in filing both appeals is condoned. 7. I shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee appellant based on which he has assailed the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) in his case for AY 201-12 in ITA No.280/RPR /2023. 8. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee had during the year made cash

PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay involved in filing both appeals is condoned. 7. I shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee appellant based on which he has assailed the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) in his case for AY 201-12 in ITA No.280/RPR /2023. 8. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee had during the year made cash

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, AMBIKAPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

condonation petition along with affidavit and explaining the reason for such delay, it has been mentioned that assessee is a small retailer doing top-up mobile phone recharge of Idea Cellular Ltd. in the village Salka, Tehsil Bhaiyatan, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) and his annual income is estimated around at Rs. 50,000 – 60,000. In this background, for the relevant

SANTOSH PANDEY, AMBIKAPUR,SURGUJA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.127/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before us. 7. Adverting to the merits of the case, it transpires that the case of the assessee was reopened for bringing to tax the cash deposits

SHRI NARBARDA PARSAD GUPTA,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SARGUJA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.205/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Narbarda Prasad Gupta, S/O. Hari Prasad Gupta, Vill. Darripara, P.O-Bhaiyathan, Surajpur-497 231 (C.G.) Pan : Aujpg0494R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja. ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 63 days in filing of the same, I am of the considered view that the same merits to be condoned. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O. on the basis of information received by him that the assessee during the year had though made a cash deposit

NIDHI JAIN,C/O DESHLAHRA INDUSTRIES, NANDINI ROAD BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nidhi Jain C/O. Deshlahra Industries, Nandini Road, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 001 Pan: Afhpj2470H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had occasioned due to bonafide reasons and the same is not inordinate, therefore, I condone the same. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 15.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.2,89,400/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS to verify the “cash deposits

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

condonation of the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 2.2 We have given a thoughtful consideration and considering the circumstances leading to the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal r.w the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court admit the same. 3. We shall first deal with the additional

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:

delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd & 3rd ground, legal grounds, challenge the validity of reopening of assessment. The 4th ground is in respect of merit of the additions made in the assessment order. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee has filed its original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) declaring income

HARSHI TRIPATHI, SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. ITO 1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.524/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Harshi Tripathi Nawapare Main Road, Surajpur, Surguja-497 229 Pan: Aonpt1286N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 93 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC at Para 5.4 & 5.5 of its order has stated as follows: “5.4 Without prejudice to the above, with regard to explanation of source of cash deposit

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoned the delay of 309 days and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case, the facts as emanated clearly from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are extracted as follows: “5. DECISION: In this case, the assessment

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 42 days is condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated

BIPUL PAUL, PANKHANJORE,KANKER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-KANKER, KANKER

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 504/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

condone the delay and allow the appeal for adjudication. 7. At the threshold of the hearing, it was the submission by Ld. AR that the deposits in bank account of the assessee, pertains to his business commission and retail trading, the same is duly supported with corroborative evidences, which were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A), such as ledger account

LAXMI KANT DUBEY, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

delay of 280 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the matter, at the time of hearing an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected since already sufficient opportunities have been provided to the assessee as per the order sheet entries wherein hearing of the matter was scheduled