DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

condonation of delay wherein the sequence of events was mentioned in a chronological manner, Page 2 of the application. Once again, the ld. DR submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal had crept in due to an inadvertent mistake as the A.O remained under a bonafide belief that the reassessment

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

reassessment order, the assessee filed belated appeal (126 days) before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not admit the appeal as he was not 3 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) satisfied with the condonation delay

RAJKUMAR THADWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 515 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5 Rajkumar Thadwani Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Raipur 4. It is noted that as per Paras 4, 5.3 to 7 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

LATE SHANTI MOHTA,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 Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shanti Mohta 15/391, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram S.O Chhattisgarh- 492 001 Pan: Aldpm6184F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 46 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as evident from Para 7.1 to 8 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) /NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

VINAY PRATAP SINGH, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR , RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.398/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vinay Pratap Singh Ward No.14, Rest House Road, Post & District: Dantewada-494 449 (C.G.) Pan: Ajnps3734P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

delay of 327 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as evident from Paras 4 & 4.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) /NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake

BINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR ERSTW. ITO-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Binod Kumar Agrawal H-401 Maruti Lifestyle, Kota Road, Mohaba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aefpa4168Q

delay of 304 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. Further as evident from Para 6 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the 5 Binod Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur sake of clarity

SANJEEV KUMAR BHOTHRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjeev Kumar Bothra C/O. Bluescope Mineral Co. Lg-1, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Near Shastri Chouk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb0219R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 575 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 4 Sanjeev Kumar Bothra Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 4. That further it is noted that as per Para 5.2 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. The adjournment

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 106 days involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Para

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 & 228/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 106 days involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Para

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224, 225 & 226/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 75 and 106 days, respectively involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224, 225 & 226/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 75 and 106 days, respectively involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

HOTEL SATLAJ, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224, 225 & 226/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hotel Satlaj Jail Road Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfh3600A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 75 and 106 days, respectively involved in the captioned appeals are condoned. 4. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that as per Para 1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That as is evident from Paras 3 and 3.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order in the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.374/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 that since there was no compliance from the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That as is evident from Paras 3 and 3.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order in the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.374/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 that since there was no compliance from the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

SHYAM KUMAR NETAM, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. ACIT, MAHASAMUND

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 395 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 7. That as is evident from Paras 3 and 3.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order in the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.374/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 that since there was no compliance from the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

NELSON YONA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nelson Yona Near Shiv Mandir, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan: Adbpy8725E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 741 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 4. That on merits as emanating from the assessment order, the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lacs in his bank account and since the source of such cash deposits remained unexplained, the A.O added the said amount u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

MONA ASHWIN LODHA, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.399/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mona Ashwin Lodha Flat No.502, Vaitarana Building, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 023 Pan: Accpl7351B ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 177 days, involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5. At the very outset, it is noted that as evident from Page 2 & 3 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) /NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observation

KNS VINAYAK MINING AND INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KORBA,KORBA vs. ACIT, KORBA, KORBA

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.483/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kns Vinayak Mining & Infra Private Limited 151, Indira Commercial & Residential Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba-495 767 Pan: Aadck7102K

delay of 199 days, involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 4. At the very outset, it is noted that as evident from Paras 10.1 & 10.2 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, Paras

KALYAN GAS AGENCY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.62/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalyan Gas Agency 1, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aagfk4563Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 376 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5 Kalyan Gas Agency Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as evident from Para 4 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) /NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee