INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

delay in issuing a notice have arisen. Since the Petitioner is not obliged to file any return, the question of availing section 124(3)(a) of the Act did not arise. 8. Be that as it may, in the considered view of the Court, the AO having jurisdiction i.e., Respondent No. I ought to have issue a notice under section

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned the delay involved in present case. 10. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR pressed following additional grounds: Additional Ground No. 1 dated 04.04.2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 144 by Addl. CIT is invalid as he was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee firm for making assessment

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, the Order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts, therefore, the additions/disallowances made to be deleted. 2. That the Order of the learned Assessing Officer is based on presumption & surmises, and therefore, the disallowances

SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

delay has been occurred due to bonafide reasons, we condone the same relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 and Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal

SAVITA SANJAY MARGHADE,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHILAI

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: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 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’).

section 249(2) and 249(4) of the Act. Hence, the rejection of delay condonation application of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore, held unjustified. 9. The right of appeal of assessee is to the extent specified in the Act. The Act read with the above Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 determines

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KOSMARRA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, MADELI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

124 Samiti Maryadit, Doner 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides and controlled items under public distribution system (PDS), had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 07.02.2015, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee society was selected