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.

reassessment and reasons recorded itself is without independent application of mind, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law, the act of the A.O cannot be held to be justified within the provisions 7 Seema Devi Agrawal Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar, C/o M/s. Raj Kumar

SUNITA SHERWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(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.506/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sunita Sherwani S-19, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Attps9943C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

demonetization period. So, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued by the AO on 09/08/2018 and served upon the assesse. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued and served upon the assesse on 09.08.2019. The assessee responded to the queries raised from time to time

PRATIK SHAH, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 224/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

demonetization period in SBN of Rs. 45,00,500/- as unexplained money and made addition of Rs. 45,00,500/-. Regarding other credits of Rs. 1,75,89,904/-, the estimated the GP at the rate of 2.82% on the basis of average GP of last 3 years shown by 3 third parties engaged in the similar line of business

POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 255 & 256/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19)

demonetization period'. In this case, assessee has shown sales of Rs.19,27,11,748/- as per the profit and loss account. However, on perusal of bank statement reveal that the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- deposited during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that this bank account has all cash/credit entries in respect of the sale

POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 255 & 256/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19)

demonetization period'. In this case, assessee has shown sales of Rs.19,27,11,748/- as per the profit and loss account. However, on perusal of bank statement reveal that the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- deposited during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that this bank account has all cash/credit entries in respect of the sale

VIVEK DHARIWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

demonetization period (9.11.2016 to 31.12.2016) 1 ICICI Bank Ltd 134805000494 15,60,000/- 2 ICICI Bank Ltd 134801502855 4,00,000/- Total 19,60,000/- 3. That, during the assessment proceedings, though, the assessee was asked to explain the source of such cash deposits, however, the assessee had not complied with the hearing notices, hence, the source and nature

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 434/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

demonetization period. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the justification of aforesaid additions, however, the appeal is dismissed on account of no response/compliance by the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us, which is under consideration

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

demonetization notification and was allowed to accept old Specified Currency Notes. The appellant has also not claimed or given evidence that the deposits were from his receipts prior to 09.11.2016. In such a scenario the appellant should have furnished details of stock and corresponding sales to have that cash balance on 09.11.2016. But the appellant have failed to produce such