PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 42 days is condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of 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 No.17/2025, dated

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of appeal is therefore condoned and appeal admitted. 5.3 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, all of which are however against the single issue of taxing the maturity proceeds received from life insurance policy upon its surrender. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance

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’).

69; and v. Addition of Rs. 39,497.00 as Short Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application

M/S DIVYANSH INFRA ESTATE PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited House No.44/487, Arihant Niwas, Satti Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcd7801J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground 4 M/s. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

delayed payment of such contribution as deemed income in the hands of the assessee. It was contended by the assessee that the assessee had paid the employee’s 4 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. ITO, NFAC contribution of Rs.7,69,000/- before the due date as defined u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), hence

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay in filing of appeal is therefore condoned and appeal admitted. 5.3 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, all of which are however against the single issue of taxing the maturity proceeds received from life insurance policy upon its surrender. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance

ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 743 days is condoned taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 3 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 (SC); (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 69 of the IT, Act, 1961. 3. That the assessee craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3 Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 280 & 281/RPR/2023 3. At the very outset, Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short

PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 69 of the IT, Act, 1961. 3. That the assessee craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3 Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 280 & 281/RPR/2023 3. At the very outset, Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI BISHAMBHAR DAYAL AGRAWAL, JASHPUR (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O u/s.153C of the Act, which was purely an issue of law, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal in refusing to consider such significant issue

VANDANA NARENDRA LODHA, PUNE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It A No: 419/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 30.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2013-14, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 04.11.2016, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 M/s Vandana Narendra Lodha vs. Asst

RADHA MISHRA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Radha Mishra C/O. Kunj Bihari Mishra, Opp. D.P. Vipra Law College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur-495 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bzspm0698G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 34 days in filing of the present appeal, therefore, the same considering the totality of the facts merits to be condoned. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around in a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the A.O was justified in law and facts of the case in treating the unexplained portion

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

KUNDAN SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR (ERSTWHILE ITO-4(5), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 477/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 02.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer-4(5), (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 143 of the Act, dated 13.12.2017. 2 Kundan Singh Thakur Vs. ITO-4(1), (Erstwhile-ITO-4(5), Raipur 2. The grounds

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act and in rejecting the books of Accounts of the appellant on the basis of statement recorded by Jt. CIT, Range -1 during a survey operation u/s.133A in the case of third /unrelated/unconnected persons and by using such statements behind the back of the Appellant, without giving any opportunity of rebutting and cross-examining

GAURAV AGRAWAL LEGAL HEIR OF SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 389/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE on the aforesaid addition of Rs.2,06,48,091/- for excess stock u/s 69, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), challenging the justification of higher tax rate, however, the appeal was dismissed on an ex-parte basis. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid

SHRI SWAPNIL KUMAR JAIN,CHAMPA (CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- JANJGIR, CHAMPA,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

condones the delay. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 10 ITA No. : 106/BIL/2017 AY : 2010-2011 4. Pithily, the facts of the case are; 4.1 The appellant assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s R K Traders, had filed his return of income [for short “ROI/ITR”] for AY 2010-2011 on 22/09/2010 declaring total taxable income

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)

69 Private Limited Vs. Pr. CIT- RPR/2018 Raipur Bench I, Raipur (CG) . 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) The Hon'ble 70-75 vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 Supreme Court 5. CIT vs. J.L. Morrison India (2014) 366 ITR The Hon'ble High 76 - 103 Limited 593 Cal Court of Calcutta 6. Commissioner of Income