RAGHUBIR SINGH SISODIA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JANJGIR-CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 176/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Ward No.20, Near Sadar School, Daily Market, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Pin-495668 Pan : Bzmps8275F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

69A, which is not applicable in the case of assessee at all, no any search conducted, no any survey conducted, addition made with wrong section as ownership of money and not disclosure is wrongly considered, the addition made on that ground is also bad in law and against the principal of natural justice. 03. That the penalty proceeding initiated u/s.271

NELSON YONA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nelson Yona Near Shiv Mandir, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan: Adbpy8725E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 741 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 4. That on merits as emanating from the assessment order, the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lacs in his bank account and since the source of such cash deposits remained unexplained, the A.O added the said amount u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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)

Section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition by the Ld. AO through the impugned assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of assessee is dismissed on account of delay of 346 days in filing of appeal, by rejecting the request for condonation

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

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 of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

LAXMI KANT DUBEY, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

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 of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

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

HARSHI TRIPATHI, SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. ITO 1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.524/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Harshi Tripathi Nawapare Main Road, Surajpur, Surguja-497 229 Pan: Aonpt1286N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 93 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC at Para 5.4 & 5.5 of its order has stated as follows: “5.4 Without prejudice to the above, with regard to explanation of source of cash deposit, the appellant has submitted that

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoned the delay of 309 days and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case, the facts as emanated clearly from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are extracted as follows: “5. DECISION: In this case, the assessment

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)

section 69A are not applicable. Addition of Rs.38,37,522/- be deleted. 3. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, erred in passing the order ex-partie without considering the facts available on record. Notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) did not come to the knowledge of appellant

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

delay of 485 days involved in both these appeals are hereby condoned and the matters are heard on merits. 4. That so far as merits of the case are concerned, both the parties conceded that the facts and circumstances and issue involved in these appeals are absolutely identical and similar, therefore, having heard the submissions of the parties, both these

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

delay of 485 days involved in both these appeals are hereby condoned and the matters are heard on merits. 4. That so far as merits of the case are concerned, both the parties conceded that the facts and circumstances and issue involved in these appeals are absolutely identical and similar, therefore, having heard the submissions of the parties, both these

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

69A, as the cash deposits made by the assessee (HUF) in its bank account maintained with the Union Bank Of India, Samta Colony Branch, Raipur could not be explained by the assessee. It is observed by the AO that, the assessee has failed to furnish 3 Sunil Kumar Agrawal and Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) return

ASHOK KUMAR KEJRIWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 425/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 13.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.12.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (1), Bilaspur (in short “Ld. AO ”). 2 Ashok Kumar Kejriwal vs. DCIT Circle1(1), Bilaspur

THE INDIAN MISSIONARY MOVEMENT,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- KAWARDHA, KAWARDHA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

delay on account of sufficient cause 3 ITA 199/RPR/2022 The Indian Missionary Movement in filing of appeal has been condoned as per provisions of section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an educational institution, which has failed in furnishing the income tax return for the assessment year

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)

69A of the Act as unexplained money in the hands of assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but remain unsuccessful as the appeal of assessee has been dismissed on account of delay in filing of the appeal for 436 days. 4. In order to assail the aforesaid decision of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had been condoned vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2024. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information gathered from NMS/ITS module that though the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.17,05,824/- in his bank account but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had been condoned vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2024. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information gathered from NMS/ITS module that though the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.17,05,824/- in his bank account but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice

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

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delay has to be well explained. At the same time in these issues a liberal and judicious approach 3 Seema Devi Agrawal Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur must be adopted also. Considering the aforesaid facts, I condone the same relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward