SHRI SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DUHLANI,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Bil/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mahesh Kumar Duhlani Main Road, P. O. Katoghora, Distt. Korba (C.G) Pan : Aejpd4102K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (Cg) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

cash been deposited doubted 22 A.Y.2011-12 their credit worthiness of the depositors. We have also gone through the finding of the ld. CIT(A) as extracted here in above. 9. Since, the Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has already held that when the primary onus is discharged by filling the required details on records then the department has to prove

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash deposited belonged to the partnership firm of the assessee which was substantiated by documentary evidences that were disregarded by Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(Appeals), hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs.11,59,670/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

cash deposited in bank accounts of creditors, because under law, 13 assessee can be asked to prove source of credits in its books of account but not source of source - Held, yes - Whether merely because summons issued to some of creditors could not be served or they failed to appear before Assessing Officer, could not be ground to treat those

SHRI HARISH KUMAR CHHABADA,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.91/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance is deleted. 12. Considering the aforesaid factual position, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the Department while framing assessment in the case of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year i.e. A.Y.2012-13 had itself held the cash deposits

M/S M SUBBA RAJU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M Subba Raju D. No.32-12-16, Flat No.401, Sri Sri Kakatiya Towers, Boyapati Madhavrao Street, Mogalrajpuram, Vijaywada Pan: Aaefm3293R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits in F.Y.2016-17 relevant to A.Y.2017-18 was Rs.13,90,000/-, out of which, the A.O disallowed an amount of Rs.9

HARJINDAR SINGH BAL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposit of Rs.8 lac in his bank account; and (ii) that though the assessee had earned exempt income of Rs.55,501/- from a partnership firm but had not offered for disallowance

TEKCHAND PUNJABI, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Tekchand Punjabi, C/O Shankar Lal Tekchand, Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, 496001, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aeqpp2267N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance by the AO regarding cash deposits of Rs.4,21,874/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money in the hands

DINESH KUMAR ACHARYA, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.109/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Acharya 1, Main Road, Kasdol, Baloda Bazar-493 335 (C.G.) Pan : Afapa4354A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits of Rs.1,50,000/- in demonetized currency during demonetization period, but 3 Dinesh Kumar Acharya Vs. ITO, Bhatapara had failed to explain the source of the same. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money. Also, the A.O made ad-hoc disallowances

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)

cash deposit explained in detail. No finding on detailed SOF. No finding on improper opportunity of being heard, issuance of show cause notice at fag end of proceedings or detailed submissions filed at assessment stage. CIT(A) confirmed disallowance

DINESH KUMAR DIXIT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

cash deposits made in bank account, therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 4. That the invocation of Section 115BBE is itself bad in law and also invalid because the same is not applicable for the AY 2017-18, more so when the tax audit report mentioning the sources of income was duly e-filed on 05.11.2017 under section

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit of 8% on Rs. 4,69,64,200/- on credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Bank of Baroda having account no. 101205000067, which is calculated at Rs.37,57,136/-. Further, the interest income in the bank account

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit of 8% on Rs. 4,69,64,200/- on credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Bank of Baroda having account no. 101205000067, which is calculated at Rs.37,57,136/-. Further, the interest income in the bank account

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,20,24,300/-, also added estimated profit of 8% on Rs. 4,69,64,200/- on credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Bank of Baroda having account no. 101205000067, which is calculated at Rs.37,57,136/-. Further, the interest income in the bank account

VALLABH CHANDAK,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

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.104/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vallabh Chandak Pro. M/S. Laxmi Pharma Purana Mandi Road, Ganjpara, Mahasamund (C.G.)-493 445 Pan : Akhpc3415A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-Mahasumand (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of Rs.29,487/- made by invoking provision of section 40(a)(ia) be deleted. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, or alter any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is running a wholesale medical shop had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18

LOKESHWAR KUMAR SAHU,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX ASSESSING OFFICER, DHAMTARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Shri Balaji Construction Co. Near Rest House Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ctnps5629H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowing the un-explained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) and adding thereby Rs.3,50,000/- in the hands of the assesse. The assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in his bank account and had subsequently, given an un-secured loan to Mr. Santosh Ramrakhyani, earning an interest income therefrom

SUDHA GUPTA,BILASPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 435/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

deposit was properly recorded in Cash book maintained by the assessee. 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming AO’s act of initiation of Penalty under Sec 270A on rental Income of Rs. 1459564/- which was already declared in ITR filed. 8. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming AO’s invocation of Penalty under Sec 271F for not furnishing

MOTI ALOO BHANDAR, KORBA,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 340/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Deposits State Bank of Aggregate gross 2,63,42,800 (including India amount received through bearer’s from person in cheque) in cash current account Cash State Bank of Aggregate gross 3,00,000 withdrawals India amount received including from person in through bearer’s cash cheque) in current account Total 2,66,42,800 In view of aforesaid information

SHRI PRITAM SINGH GABEL,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR CHAMPA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.154/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel, M/S. Preetam Tractors, Baradwar Road, P.O. Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Agipg1118M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits of Rs.39,39,890/-(supra), but had made part disallowance of the assesse’s claim for deduction of commission