GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine on account of delay in filing of appeal belatedly after 1647 days. The relevant finding of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee read as below: “2.13 In the present case

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine on account of delay in filing of appeal belatedly after 1647 days. The relevant finding of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee read as below: “2.13 In the present case

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine on account of delay in filing of appeal belatedly after 1647 days. The relevant finding of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee read as below: “2.13 In the present case

SHREE KRISHNA COLONISERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

133(A) was conducted at the premises of concerns of the assessee on 27.01.2017. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category complete scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee had submitted replies which were duly considered by the Ld. AO. During

SHREE KRISHNA BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

133(A) was conducted at the premises of concerns of the assessee on 27.01.2017. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category complete scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee had submitted replies which were duly considered by the Ld. AO. During

SANDEEP KAUR GILL, RAIPUR ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is 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: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 873 days deserves to be condoned and the matter should be adjudicated afresh based on merits of the case and facts available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 9,08,810/-. Thereafter

VINEET SINGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 239/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

delay of 371 days occurred in filing the appeal being bonafide and unintentional deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of 5,000/- by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are 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

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are 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

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are 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

PRATIK SHAH, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

Appeal of the assessee is 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. 224/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

133(6) of the act which revealed that there were total credits of Rs. 2,23,17,211/- during FY 2016-17 including cash deposits of Rs. 48,38,500/- during demonetization period. Considering the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant the AO had issued show cause notice proposing to complete the assessment u/s 144, however again their appellant failed

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

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had been condoned vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2024. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information gathered from NMS/ITS module that though the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.17,05,824/- in his bank account but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had been condoned vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2024. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information gathered from NMS/ITS module that though the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.17,05,824/- in his bank account but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

133(6) to all alleged investor companies, and these companies furnished all required information to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Ld. A.R. wants the Department to accept a certain set of papers on the ground that similar papers were accepted in earlier years also. However, estoppels do not apply in I.T. proceedings, and each assessment year is separate

M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

133(6) to all alleged investor companies, 19 M/s. Purvi Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) and these companies furnished all required information to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Ld. A.R. wants the Department to accept a certain set of papers on the ground that similar papers were accepted in earlier years also. However, estoppels do not apply

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

133(6) to all alleged investor companies, and these companies furnished all required information to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Ld. A.R. wants the Department to accept a certain set of papers on the ground that similar papers were accepted in earlier years also. However, estoppels do not apply in I.T. proceedings, and each assessment year is separate

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

133 Hon'ble ITAT, ACIT, Raipur taxmann.com 188 Raipur Bench 4. Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs. (1998) 66 CCH Hon'ble High Court CIT 0874 of Calcutta 5. Parveen Kumar (2021) 63 CCH Hon'ble ITAT, Mittal vs. PCIT 0256 Chandigarh 6. Supersonic Technologies (P) (2019) 175 DTR Hon'ble ITAT, Ltd. vs. PCIT 30 Delhi Bench 7. Concord Infra