RAJKUMAR THADWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 515 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5 Rajkumar Thadwani Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Raipur 4. It is noted that as per Paras 4, 5.3 to 7 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

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

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of appeal is therefore condoned and appeal admitted. 5.3 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, all of which are however against the single issue of taxing the maturity proceeds received from life insurance policy upon its surrender. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance

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

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

demonetization period. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the justification of aforesaid additions, however, the appeal is dismissed on account of no response/compliance by the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us, which is under consideration

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)

demonetization period and Rs.62,84,500/- was deposited out of share proceeds. The appellant has mentioned that it is providing installation of DISH TV setup boxes and cash has been received out of the sale. 6.1.2 I have gone through the Profit and Loss account and the Balance Sheet of the appellant. The appellant has not filed the comparative figures

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

condone the delay of 479 days. 4. That, regarding merits, the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/sec. 144 of the Act and it was a time when e-proceedings had started, a notice u/sec. 142(1) along with questionnaire was served on the assessee through regd. e-mail ID and speed post also. However, there

THE INDIAN MISSIONARY MOVEMENT,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- KAWARDHA, KAWARDHA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

delay on account of sufficient cause 3 ITA 199/RPR/2022 The Indian Missionary Movement in filing of appeal has been condoned as per provisions of section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an educational institution, which has failed in furnishing the income tax return for the assessment year

SARITA KONDA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Camelia Flat No.15, Block A01, 4Th Floor, Greenville City, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the impugned delay of 307 days (as pointed out by the registry) in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 8. Succinctly stated, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment for the subject year to verify the substantial cash deposits made in her bank account during the demonetization

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 during

MADHU ANIL MARK,BHILAI NAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 BHILAI, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.533/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madhu Anil Mark Block No.D7, Flat No.19, Chauhan Green Vally, Moti Lal Nehru Nagar, Durg (C.G)-490 020 Pan : Aippm0087J

delay of 20 days involved in filing of the present appeal which is not inordinate, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 27.07.2017 declaring an income of Rs.16,47,390/-. 4 Madhu Anil Mark Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhilai Subsequently, the case of the assessee

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

condone the impugned delay of 346 days (as pointed out by the registry) involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 02.11.2017, declaring an income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of appeal is therefore condoned and appeal admitted. 5.3 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, all of which are however against the single issue of taxing the maturity proceeds received from life insurance policy upon its surrender. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance

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 made in her bank account during

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delay has to be well explained. At the same time in these issues a liberal and judicious approach 3 Seema Devi Agrawal Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur must be adopted also. Considering the aforesaid facts, I condone the same relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward

SWISS LIFESTYLE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Swiss Lifestyle Naidu Complex, Near Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Acgfs7296G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 116 days and proceed with the matter on merits. 3. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and doing business of luxury items like watches, perfumes etc. has e- filed its return of income alongwith Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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

condonation of the delay as would be involved at the relevant point of time. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 6. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record

ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 743 days is condoned taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 3 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 (SC); (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

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