PRAKASH DAVARA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COIMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

cash deposit of Rs.30 lacs in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, the A.O initiated proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.08.2012 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income u/s.148 of the Act on 06.08.2012, disclosing an income of Rs.33

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated.” 8 Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs. DCIT-1(1) 11. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) taking cognizance of the fact that there was cut throat competition in trading of unbranded goods a/w. the fact that the assessee would have also incurred expenses on salary, freight and other routine expenses in the course

TOMAN SINGH SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.499/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Toman Singh Sahu H. No.1246, Vivekanand Ashram, Ram Kund Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Epyps2394L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposited of Rs.2,14,00,000/- is added back in the total income of the assessee as per provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty u/s. 271

DAYARAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment.” 3. As evident from the aforesaid, the A.O had made addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to unexplained money i.e. cash deposits

VINOD KUMAR SONI, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Kumar Soni Moulviya Bandh, Namanakala, Chhattisgarh-497 001 Pan: Bukps0274H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-1, Chandigarh. ……""यथ" / Respondent

Cash Deposit under Section 69A (Unexplained Income/Money). Ld. AO has made addition without considering the entire facts of the case. Hence, addition made is bad in Law, against natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 2. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer determined the penalty proceedings U/s 271

SIKHA AGRAWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shikha Agrawal A-9, Ashirbadpuram Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 554 Pan: Cjwpa0265J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately. The amount of Rs.1,98,000/- paid in cash for purchase of property is treated as assessee's unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and treated as 4 Shikha Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh assessee's income

PRAMILA GOKULDAS DAGA GIRLS COLLEGE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 546 & 547/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pramila Gokuldas Daga Girls College Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaatp4369D

cash deposits specifically when the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the subsequent years i.e. A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been dropped by the department. 9. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee trust in its memorandum of appeal i.e. “Form 35” had specifically opted out of service

PRAMILA GOKULDAS DAGA GIRLS COLLEGE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 546 & 547/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pramila Gokuldas Daga Girls College Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaatp4369D

cash deposits specifically when the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the subsequent years i.e. A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been dropped by the department. 9. Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee trust in its memorandum of appeal i.e. “Form 35” had specifically opted out of service

BEERASWAMY YOGESHWAR MUDALIAR, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Beeraswamy Yogeshwar Mudaliar Ward No.4, Gandhinagar, Veer Sawarkar Marg, P.O. Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja-497 001 Pan: Bnxpm2592L

cash deposits lump sum amount which were received at the time of retirement by way of PF, gratuity and leave encashment. At the same time, the assessee is having diagnosed with cancer and suffering this decease. The penalty u/s. 271

PAGADALA VELUGONDA REDDY, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.726/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pagadala Velugonda Reddy Lig 284, Hudco, Bhilai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Abmpv7318K

cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and detailed written submission a/w. documentary evidence were filed as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal and did not adjudicate

NARESH KUMAR & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 247/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Naresh Kumar & Sons Huf 11/3, Near New Bus Stand, Pandri, Govind Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaghn0904E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal, Ca : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2023

cash and deposited the same to its own account. Similarly, it has given money to the parties from its own account against the purchases. While as in the case of commission work, no such activity is done. Had it been commission based work, assessee would have only facilitated the work and doing all the work of trading. Therefore, vide note

SEVA RAM SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 820/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1 Seva Ram Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Raipur 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, a non-filer of the Income Tax Return (‘ITR’), has made cash deposits

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

penalty of Rs.3,17,452/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O. 3 Sandeep Kaur Gill Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur ITA Nos. 267 & 268/RPR/2022 4. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

penalty of Rs.3,17,452/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O. 3 Sandeep Kaur Gill Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur ITA Nos. 267 & 268/RPR/2022 4. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

deposit amount of cost by the appellant within the stipulated time shall lead to automatic dissolution of this order.” 3. Similarly, in ITA No.118/RPR/2024, the Tribunal had not condoned the delay of 597 days and dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee had preferred an appeal which was admitted and adjudicated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

deposit amount of cost by the appellant within the stipulated time shall lead to automatic dissolution of this order.” 3. Similarly, in ITA No.118/RPR/2024, the Tribunal had not condoned the delay of 597 days and dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee had preferred an appeal which was admitted and adjudicated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), BHILAI vs. M/S AVNI COLONIZERS PVT. LTD, BHILAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.59/Rpr/2020 Co No. 03/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

deposit in banks duly supported by corroborative evidence such as balance sheet, capital account and the authenticity of transactions which the shareholder has failed to furnish. Thus, the genuineness and `37/2),. creditworthiness of share holder remained to be proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the share application money and share premium amounting to Rs.6,08,650/- credited in the books of account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets; (ia) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) in so far as such distribution is attributable to the capitalised profits of the company representing bonus shares allotted to its equity shareholders after

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets; (ia) a distribution made in accordance with sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) in so far as such distribution is attributable to the capitalised profits of the company representing bonus shares allotted to its equity shareholders after