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

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeals by the assessee appellant. 9. Apropos the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contribution of Rs.1,44,91,662/- towards, viz. (i). ESI: Rs.17,35,445/-; and (ii). PF: Rs.1,27,56,216/- (wrongly mentioned by the assessee

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

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

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

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

M/S NEO TECH ENGINEERING,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the same after drawing support from 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 had thereafter from time to time been modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order(s) dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the return

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)

1. This is an appeal filed before ITAT on 31-05-2019 by the assessee against adverse appeal order of CIT appeal dated 02-06-2017. The delay in filing of form no 36 is more than 668 days. On issuing letter, the assessee replied on 02-07- 2019 and admitted that, there is delay in filing form no 36

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

v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA 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, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA 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