VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), 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: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (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:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine, refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating the facts of the case and provisions of relevant law, and 1 Vinod

V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

condonation of delay by us, we will decide this appeal on merit. 9. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had no power to dismiss appeal in limine. The Act had empowered

BHARAT KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

delay\nof 80 days involved in the present appeal is condoned.\n5. At the very outset, it is noted that an ex-parte order has been passed\nby the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide paras 4 & 5 of the impugned order due\nto non-compliance by the assessee. There is no doubt of the fact that\nreasonable opportunities were provided

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), passed on 28.07.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Raipur (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 144 of the Act, dated 03.02.2014, for AY. 2011-12. 2 Dolphin Promoters and Builders vs Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur 2. The grounds

AGRAWAL SPONGE LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-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.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4

RAJU JHANGHEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

250 of the Act issued through the ITBA portal which are summarized below: Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of Compliance Remark 1. 25.10.2024 07.11.2024 Non compliance 2. 08.11.2024 18.11.2024 Non compliance 3. 19.11.2024 26.11.2024 Non compliance 4. 27.11.2024 04.12.2024 Non compliance Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur The above table clearly demonstrates that the appellant

RAJU JHANGHEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

250 of the Act issued through the ITBA portal which are summarized below: Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of Compliance Remark 1. 25.10.2024 07.11.2024 Non compliance 2. 08.11.2024 18.11.2024 Non compliance 3. 19.11.2024 26.11.2024 Non compliance 4. 27.11.2024 04.12.2024 Non compliance Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur The above table clearly demonstrates that the appellant

UDAY VENTURE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 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.824/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Uday Venture Singhania Bhawan, Subhash Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadfu7600D

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

M/S GULZAR-MOKSH(JV), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gulzar-Moksh (Jv) Gulzar Niwas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (C.G)-494 001 Pan: Aanfg4916A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay. He has simply upheld the assessment 3 M/s. Gulzar-Moksh (JV) Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur order without following the mandate of Section 250(4

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

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

SHYAM PULSES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 106 days involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Para

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 106 days involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Para

VINAY PRATAP SINGH, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-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.398/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vinay Pratap Singh Ward No.14, Rest House Road, Post & District: Dantewada-494 449 (C.G.) Pan: Ajnps3734P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

delay of 327 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as evident from Paras 4 & 4.1 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. For the sake

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGOAN,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

condonation of such delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

condonation of such delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

condonation of such delay. At the same time, Section 249(3) of the Act has to be read a/w. 250 (4