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

142, sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect: -- "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.-- Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), 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

142, sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect: -- "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.-- Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating

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)

condonation of delay. He has also filed an application for raising additional ground on 26-12-2022. 2. It is first hearing and no adjournment found on records by either side. 3. The assessee paid Rs. Nil /- against demand of Rs. 19,30,510/-. The revenue involved is lower higher prescribed limit specified in CBDT Circular no 17/2019 dated

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

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

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay is found to be covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020, which was thereafter modified vide further order(s) dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, as per which for the purpose of limitation the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was to be excluded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

142: (vii). State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 SCC 132: (viii). State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC . 309 (ix). National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Giga Ram and others, (2002) 10 SCC . . 176. 22 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (x). State of Nagaland

SHRI OM PARSHAVNATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sunil Sponge Private Limited Plot No.96-97, Phase-Ii, Industrial Area, Siltara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aahcs7999A

delay of 3 days is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits. 3 Sunil Sponge Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said

PRANAV TRUST, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pranav Trust Baniya Para, Durg-491 001 (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aabtp9694C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay of 9 days involved in filing of the same. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the CIT(Appeals) is right in law and facts of the case in approving the levy of tax on the income of the assessee trust at Maximum Marginal Rate

TECHNOBLAST MINING CORPORATION,RAIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Technoblast Mining Corporation Pcit (Central), 19, 2Nd Floor Krishna Complex, Raipur Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh – 496 001

delay was condoned, and the matter was permitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case culled out of the material on records are that, the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of mining contract and electronically filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,62,87,530/- on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the case was selected

MALANI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

142(1) of the Act and the appellant complied with the same on various dates. After, considering the various submissions filed by the appellant, the assessing officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30/03/2016 and assessed the total income at Rs.45,24,106/- by making an addition

NIDHI JAIN,GALI NO., SBI COLONY, FAFADIH,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (C.G.), CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR (C.G.)

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 659/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

142(1), letter, SCN u/s 144 and additional SCN, chooses not to comply accordingly, Ld. AO has completed the assessment on best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act after considering the information available on record. In conclusion, an addition of Rs. 7692594/- was made u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money in the hands of assessee. 3. Being

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

142(2), issue of notice U/s.148 of I.T Act, 1961 The assessee did not file the return for the relevant assessment year. As per the information available in this office, a total cash of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deposited in the saving bank account and Cash Transaction of Rs. 28,00,000/- total of Rs. 43,00,000/- during

HEM LAL SAHU, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.473/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hem Lal Sahu Ram Nagar, Gali No.4, Shitla Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Egpps3559K

142(1) was issued on 26-12-22 & 11-1-23 and SCN was issued on 22-2-23 & 2-3-23. Finally, the assessment u/s.147 rws.144 was completed on 21-3-23 by making addition of Rs.5,00,000 on the count of unexplained unsecured loan u/s.68. The appeal against the order u/s.147 rws.144 dt.21-3-23 should have been filed

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)

142, the AO sha// serve on the assessee a notice requiring him either to attend the office of the AO or to produce or cause to be produce before the AO any evidence on which the assessee may re/y in support of the return". After the notice u/s.143(2) is issued, order is passed u/s.143(3). In the present case

MAHESH PRASAD SINGH, AMBIKAPUR,SURGUJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 117/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 69A are not applicable. Addition of Rs.38,37,522/- be deleted. 3. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, erred in passing the order ex-partie without considering the facts available on record. Notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) did not come to the knowledge of appellant

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