BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of "the Act" but paid to the (respective funds after the due dates as specified by rules of relevant funds are correctly held as deemed income and, therefore , the disallowance is hereby confirmed as the said late payments are \ not covered under 43B of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay of 41 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a labour contractor had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2019-20 on 05.11.2019, declaring an income of Rs.24,12,846/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, wherein after making

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

DEEPAK TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

PRIYANKA TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER-2(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTION,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Deputy Comm. Of Income Tax, CPC has been erred in disallowance of Rs.4,64,730/- on account ESIC payment (employee's contribution) made after the due date as specified in relevant act but before the due date of filing of return. 2 M/s Varsha Construction vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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 submitted his written submissions as under :- Sub:- Appeal filed under section 253 by the assessee in the case of Shri. Mickey Shrivastava for the A.Y. 2012-13 ITA 122/RPR/2019 with reference to form no 36 filed on 31-05-2019- request regarding: - 1

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

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 Honble 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 No............ /2025

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

condoned. 23. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue involves a delay of 3966 days, which, as stated by the Ld. A.R and, rightly so, is an inordinate delay. 29 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Considering that the Revenue had delayed filing the present appeal before us, i.e., filed the appeal after the lapse

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

A.C.STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C Strips Pvt. Ltd. 20, New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacca0568N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay involved in filing of the present appeal and condone the same. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of running a rolling mill had e-filed its return of income for the A.Y.2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring an income of Rs.49,10,790/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay