PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

148A(b) dated 16.03.2022 was issued granting the assessee time to respond only up to 23.03.2022, thus, provided less than the statutorily required minimum of seven days' notice, in clear violation of the express Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari provision that mandates 'not less than seven days' to respond. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the assessment

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

148A(b) dated 16.03.2022 was issued granting the assessee time to respond only up to 23.03.2022, thus, provided less than the statutorily required minimum of seven days' notice, in clear violation of the express Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari provision that mandates 'not less than seven days' to respond. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR vs. MS MAYURA SARIA PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

penalty u/s 271(1} (c} of the Act. The appellant further in its submission submitted that information received by the AO from DDIT/ADIT, does not have the name of the appellant rather it mentions the name Mayura Yogesh therefore the transactions in the pen drive which was not seized from the appellant but from the third party does not pertains

ASHAP KUMAR SHANTIEL BARA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 486 & 487/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

penalty order 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 26.09.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO”). Ashap Kumar Shantiel Bara Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 486/RPR/2025 (against impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B) are as under: 1. In the facts