PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 232/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Jain Pro. Jain Borewell Ganj Road, Nawapara-Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-493 881 Pan : Affpj6898B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed by Assessing Officer for which in reality, procedure of granting approval to the proposal of AO to issue notice u/s 148 as prescribed u/s 151(1) was not followed properly and judicially. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 5, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) has erred in confirming

PRAVEEN SHAILEENA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), RAIPUR

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. 72/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Parveen Shaileena Behind Ankur Hospital, Hanuman Mandir, Jail Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7678N

reassessment made u/s147 dt.19-12-17 would be invalid, and is liable to be quashed." Additional Gr.No.2: 3 Parveen Shaileena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reasons are wrongly recorded for Rs.20,03,000 being cash deposits

JUMMAN LAL YADAV,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 290/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jumman Lal Yadav Deep Chowk, Kusumkasa, Balod, Durg (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Acmpy0168R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

cash deposits need not necessarily be income of the assessee; reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated only to examine the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI, BHILAI vs. AMIT GAUTAM, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 566/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

deposits, TDS, cash withdrawals etc. Accordingly the case of assessee has been picked up for reassessment u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee

SMT. PRABHA KHANDELWAL L/H OF LATE OMPRAKASH KHANDELWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 55/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Late Omprakash Khandelwal (Through Legal Heir:Smt.Prabha Khandelwal) B-107, Surya Residency, Opposite M.J. College Kohka Road, Bhilai(C.G.)-490023 Pan: Anspk3247N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash Rs.10280685/- in his saving a/c and which is chargeable to tax. Since, the assessee from his part did not show/disclose the income to the department, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs.10280685/- (deposit in saving bank a/c) is left for assessment for AY 2010-11. Issue notice u/s. 148 for reassessment

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

cash deposits remained unexplained and accordingly, reassessment proceedings were invoked u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

cash deposits remained unexplained and accordingly, reassessment proceedings were invoked u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

HEMANT KUMAR TIKARIHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.97 & 98/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

reassessment proceedings called for the information but due to noncompliance of the appellant, the AO concluded the assessment ex-parte. 5.2 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant, and material available on record, remand report have been carefully examined. The appellant has furnished a cash book in support of the sources of cash deposits

HEMANT KUMAR TIKARIHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.97 & 98/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

reassessment proceedings called for the information but due to noncompliance of the appellant, the AO concluded the assessment ex-parte. 5.2 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant, and material available on record, remand report have been carefully examined. The appellant has furnished a cash book in support of the sources of cash deposits

RAHUL SHUKLA,DURG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rahul Shukla C/O. Rakesh Enterprises, G.E. Road, Kumhari, Durg-491 001 Pan : Dkips6951K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Nfac, Delhi ……""यथ" / Respondent

deposits in his bank account of Rs.25,81,600/- were comprised of, viz. (i) cash sale proceeds generated from the business of trading in wood: Rs.20,95,700/-; and (ii) balance amount was out of the assessee’s past savings : Rs.4,85,900/-. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that a bare perusal of the said bank account revealed

DURGA SHANKAR CHODHERY, SARAIPALI,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Reassessment Order may please be quashed and cancelled on this ground alone. GROUND NO.III On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.61,53,134/- thereby treating the cash deposits

SURENDRA KUMAR CHANDRAKAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 193/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

cash deposits of Rs.1,30,48,500/- in his aforesaid bank account, the AO treated it as unexplained Income u/s. 69A of the Act and the assessment was completed with the said addition. 4 Surendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

JAISHRI KESHARWANI, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jaishri Kesharwani House No.682/1, Thavait Gali, Baikuntpur, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan : Akfpj6433R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the income-tax Act. 1961 without fulfilling all the necessary conditions. Hence, the said re-assessment proceeding as well as the assessment order are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming determination

KANTI LAL DUGGAD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.141/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kanti Lal Duggad 35/1008, Rms Colony, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Agapd7948J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

Reassessment Order may please be quashed and cancelled on this ground alone. 3 Kanti Lal Duggad Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur 3. GROUND NO. III On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- on account of cash deposits

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has referred to Page 4 of the paper book, which reads as follows: The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the aforesaid reasons submitted that as per the said reasons recorded by the A.O, the assessee had deposited total cash

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has referred to Page 4 of the paper book, which reads as follows: The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the aforesaid reasons submitted that as per the said reasons recorded by the A.O, the assessee had deposited total cash

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has referred to Page 4 of the paper book, which reads as follows: The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the aforesaid reasons submitted that as per the said reasons recorded by the A.O, the assessee had deposited total cash