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’).

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

short “DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the cross-objection by the assessee 8. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR, we find substance in the same. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact that the assessee (since deceased) was in the course of the proceedings before

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, PACHEDA, ABHANPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village- Pacheda, Block-Abhanpur, Chhatisgarh-493 661 Pan : Aaaag9886H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay involved in filing of the present appeal, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same having occasioned on account of bonafide reasons merits to be condoned. 3. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of issues involving purely legal issues which would not require looking any further beyond the facts

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 305/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

short “Ld. AR”). 2 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: Gr. No. 1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id C[T(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.79,85,000 on long term capital gain on sale of land

GARUDA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 133/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Garuda Vyapaar Private Limited G-02, Maruti Lifestyle, Kota, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccg7149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

short ‘DR’) did not object to the condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations condone the delay of 18 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2016-17 on 17.10.2016, declaring

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR -1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

condone the delay of 299 days. We order accordingly. 4. At the time of hearing, when the matter was call up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing of the present case had started since 24th April, 2025 and as per the order sheet entries and in the entire span of time, the matter was posted

LALCHAND RAMNANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 288/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Lalchand Ramnani New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acnpr3983J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

term capital gain claimed exempt by the appellant alleging it to be bogus invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and not justified. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. Before proceeding any further, I may herein observe that

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.

termed as inordinate delay and anything below that is ordinate delay. However, the law of limitation is to be construed strictly and whether it is ordinate or inordinate, 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

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

M/S BEC INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned. 2 ITANo.66/RPR/20 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

term of employment mentioned it” during the course of assessment proceedings. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition which had been made by disallowing on the head of other contractual works amounting to Rs.74,10,500/- in spite of the fact