SUKHDEV SINGH JOSHI ,JAGDALPUR, BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 17.02.2022, passed by Addl / Joint / Deputy / Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). Sukhdev Singh Joshi vs. ITO, Ward, Jagdalpur 2. Since both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee, having common and interconnected issues, therefore, these appeals are heard together and taken

SUKHDEV SINGH JOSHI,JAGDALPUR, BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 17.02.2022, passed by Addl / Joint / Deputy / Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). Sukhdev Singh Joshi vs. ITO, Ward, Jagdalpur 2. Since both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee, having common and interconnected issues, therefore, these appeals are heard together and taken

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

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

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 of Rs.29.76 lacs made with HDFC Bank. The entire trail of examination by the A.O is with regard

RASHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 73/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Rashi Steel & Power Ltd. Vs Acit Cf9, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur New Delhi Pan No. :Aaecr 6450 Q : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

69A mandates addition only 3 in case the assessee is found to be owner of money, bullion etc. not recorded in the books of account. 12. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.85,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant due to misinterpretation of section

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated, but after rectifying u/s. 154, this penalty does not attract. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed return of his income on 24-04-2018 vide Ack. No.612516340240418 showing total taxable salary income of Rs.3,02,680/- is accepted, and therefore, the order passed

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