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:

delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd & 3rd ground, legal grounds, challenge the validity of reopening of assessment. The 4th ground is in respect of merit of the additions made in the assessment order. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee has filed its original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) declaring income

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

delay of 515 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5 Rajkumar Thadwani Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Raipur 4. It is noted that as per Paras 4, 5.3 to 7 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

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

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

delay of 69 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, the relevant facts are that the assesse is engaged in the business of real estate and construction activities. The A.O during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the bank statement of the assessee that during the demonetization period Rs.50 lacs

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

delay of 280 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the matter, at the time of hearing an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected since already sufficient opportunities have been provided to the assessee as per the order sheet entries wherein hearing of the matter was scheduled

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

PARIMAL KARMAKAR,KANKER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- KANKER, KANKER

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.124/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Parimal Karmakar, C/O. Sharad Chandra Karmakar 148/A, Ward No.2, Old Market, Pakhanjur Colony, Pakhanjur, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) Pan : Aeypk1736P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kanker (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.144 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.16,26,484/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee had failed to pay the tax on the returned income, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) held

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

condone the delay of 1722 days involved in filing of the present cross-objection by the L/heir of the assesssee. Before parting, we may herein observe, that as the assessee even otherwise by way of the present cross- objection is assailing the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for reopening his case

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)

condone the delay and allow the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having Income from sale & purchase of Coal and transporting of coal with his own trucks. The assessee did not file the Return of Income u/s 139(1) for the AY 2011-12. As per information received from

PRIYANKA MODI,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

delay and condone the same. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 30.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs.2,98,250/-. Case of the assessee was, thereafter, selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act for examining the cash deposits made in her bank account during

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

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)

unexplained money u/s 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

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, AMBIKAPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 479 days. 4. That, regarding merits, the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/sec. 144 of the Act and it was a time when e-proceedings had started, a notice u/sec. 142(1) along with questionnaire was served on the assessee through regd. e-mail ID and speed post also. However, there

MUKESH KUMAR MITTAL, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.04/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mukesh Kumar Mittal Bhaiyathan Road, Post-Surajpur (C.G)-497 229 Pan: Amlpm8514A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the impugned delay of 278 days (as pointed out by the registry) in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 8. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 09.08.2011, declaring an income of Rs.1,58,380/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment was framed

NIDHI JAIN,C/O DESHLAHRA INDUSTRIES, NANDINI ROAD BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1), BHILAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nidhi Jain C/O. Deshlahra Industries, Nandini Road, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 001 Pan: Afhpj2470H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay had occasioned due to bonafide reasons and the same is not inordinate, therefore, I condone the same. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 15.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.2,89,400/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS to verify the “cash deposits during

HARISH PANDEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 503/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

unexplained money. 4. In the fact and circumstance of the case and in-law the ld. assessing officer has earned in making of gross contract receipts of Rs. 3,27,46,118/- and gross machine rent Rs.1,93,801/- as business income. There will be provision U/s 44AD on pre-assumptive profit to be made 6% on gross receipts

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

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 5. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 09.12.2019 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.10,68,640/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.5,00,284/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assesee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Although

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