KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), 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: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (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: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 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’).

delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd ground, a legal ground, challenges the validity of reopening of assessment. The 3rd ground is in respect of merit of the additions made in the assessment order. 2 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed

RAKESH KUMAR, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI,, DURG

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022 passed by Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). 2 Rakesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

VEER PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 654/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

144B of the Act, passed by Assessment Unit, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi, dated 30.04.2021 (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Veer Projects Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its e-return

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 147 r.w.s. 144B, even though the Assessing Officer who initiated the proceedings u/s 148 had no valid jurisdiction to do so. The assumption of jurisdiction itself being void ab initio, the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment

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

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)

144B of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 passed by Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). 2 Mahesh Prasad Singh vs ITO-1, Ambikapur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That under the facts and the law, the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at Rs.43

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS & BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 440/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 144B of the Act was completed on 28.03.2022, with disallowance of Rs.72,72,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed on an ex-parte basis. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR -1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

condone the delay of 299 days. We order accordingly. 4. At the time of hearing, when the matter was call up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing of the present case had started since 24th April, 2025 and as per the order sheet entries and in the entire span of time, the matter was posted

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 31.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 06.05.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Nidhi Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 2. The brief

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 244 days involved in filing the present penalty appeal is condoned after taking guidance from the following judicial pronouncements 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

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

AJMAT QURAISHI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 439/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 06.06.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2023, passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO ”). 2 Ajmat Quraishi, Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur

SAGAR KUKREJA,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appellant's appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.508/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Kukreja Plot No.33-34, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Behind Sindhu Bhawan Bhilai, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan: Asmpk7043F

144B of the Act wherein, after making an addition of Rs.81,44,211/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,07,76,931/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee despite having been afforded four opportunities, viz. vide notices

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)

144B of the Act of the Act, dated 28.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Malani Holdings Private Limited vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

HARISH PANDEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 503/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 147 r.w.s. 148, 148A, 149, 151 and 151A of the Act. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.87,07,200/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and charging the same

VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 363/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

144B of the IT Act, dated 29.04.2021. 2 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are culled out as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.29