SMT. ANITA BANODHA ALIAS ANITA KATHGAR , ANITA AUTO, PONDI CHIRMIRI KOREA,KOREA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.230/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar Anita Auto, Pondi, West Chirmiri, Korea (C.G)-497 449 Pan: Afgpj1876C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 148 of the Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Hence, we hold that the A.O was absolutely correct and was having inherent valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee. Accordingly, the legal ground raised by the assessee is dismissed being devoid and bereft of any merits. 7. Coming to the factual

PRADEEP KUMAR DHURVE,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

PADMA DHURWAY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

BHAGWANDAS JAGDISH PRASAD, BAGBAHARA,BAGBAHARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.412 & 413/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad Petrol Pump, Main Road, Bagbahara-493 449 (C.G.) Pan: Aamfb0173H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed claim of the assessee without bringing out salient features of the IOC guidelines vis-à-vis facts of the assessee’s case. The said guidelines could not be strictly applied and is substantially dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. That as to say that once franchise is taken from parent company then how the petrol

BHAGWANDAS JAGDISH PRASAD,BAGBAHARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.412 & 413/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad Petrol Pump, Main Road, Bagbahara-493 449 (C.G.) Pan: Aamfb0173H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed claim of the assessee without bringing out salient features of the IOC guidelines vis-à-vis facts of the assessee’s case. The said guidelines could not be strictly applied and is substantially dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. That as to say that once franchise is taken from parent company then how the petrol

BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SAHU, BALODA BAZAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were 12 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Khapradih, Bhatapara made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section

GURMEET SINGH HORA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, 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. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

M/S. JAI ENTERPRISES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAGANNATHDAS HARICHANDMAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of various expenses claimed by the appellant and the total income was determined at Rs. 11,13,920. Subsequently, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of appellant on 29.01.2018. During the course of survey, statement of Sri Shyam Sundar Agrawal were recorded on oath, wherein

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

148, section149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

148, section149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

JINDAL POWER LIMITEED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX , CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09

section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year and also confirmed by Ld. CIT (A), the same is against the facts & also against the law. 2. That the Ld. A.O has grossly erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x); while for the courts on the other hand had accepted the assessee’s claim that such delayed deposits which were made by the assessee not later than the “due date” of filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved

SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KORBA(CG)

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.252/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Satish Kumar Agrawal Prop. Chhattisgarh Coal Transport, Agroha Marg, Korba (C.G). Pan: Agppa4780J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-Korba, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, Ca Revenue By :Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowing the amount of transportation charges determined the income of the assessee at Rs.15,71,660/-. 4 Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs. DCIT, Circle Korba 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

disallowance is arbitrary, illegal, baseless and not justified. 4. The notice issued by AO u/s 148 is illegal, ab initio void. There was no material before the AO for formation of belief of escapement. The AO reopened the assessment without application of mind and reassessment was initiated only on the basis of Report of DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata. The reassessment proceeding

M/S GOPAL RICE INDUSTRIES, ,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY 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. 291/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries Village- Sambalpur, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 05.02.2014 was issued to the assessee. In compliance the assessee vide its letter dated 11.03.2014 requested that its original return of income be treated as the return in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The A.O accepted the aforesaid request of the assessee