HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

160 to 163 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Coordinated Bench, that On the aforesaid analyzations and considerations and following the mandates of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Amitabh Bachchan (supra) wherein it was held that failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

160 to 163 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Coordinated Bench, that On the aforesaid analyzations and considerations and following the mandates of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Amitabh Bachchan (supra) wherein it was held that failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

160 to 163 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Coordinated Bench, that On the aforesaid analyzations and considerations and following the mandates of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Amitabh Bachchan (supra) wherein it was held that failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The said information reveals that the assessee had traded in the scrip of “Oasis Tradelink Ltd.” during the year. The said scrip was rigged by the entry provider namely Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain. The fact further illustrated by the A.O in the assessment order is that a search

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The said information reveals that the assessee had traded in the scrip of “Oasis Tradelink Ltd.” during the year. The said scrip was rigged by the entry provider namely Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain. The fact further illustrated by the A.O in the assessment order is that a search

SHRI SHRI SANDEEP MEGHANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

160 taxmann.com 652/465 ITR 356 (Delhi) /[2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685: “ Shri Sandeep Meghani vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur 17. Thus, the incidental question which emanates at this juncture is whether simply penning down "Yes" would suffice requisite satisfaction as per Section 151 of the Act. Reference can be drawn from the decision of this Court

SHRI SHRI SANDEEP MEGHANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

160 taxmann.com 652/465 ITR 356 (Delhi) /[2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685: “ Shri Sandeep Meghani vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur 17. Thus, the incidental question which emanates at this juncture is whether simply penning down "Yes" would suffice requisite satisfaction as per Section 151 of the Act. Reference can be drawn from the decision of this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

160 (Chandigarh - Trib.) and various other decisions. 9.6 On the contrary, the case of CIT vs SS Ahluwalia, [20141 46 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi), is more appropriate and relevant. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi HC has laid down several propositions including (i) Sections 120, 124 and 127 recognize flexibility and choice, both with the assessee and the authorities

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

160 (Chandigarh - Trib.) and various other decisions. 9.6 On the contrary, the case of CIT vs SS Ahluwalia, [20141 46 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi), is more appropriate and relevant. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi HC has laid down several propositions including (i) Sections 120, 124 and 127 recognize flexibility and choice, both with the assessee and the authorities

GAJRAJ GIRI, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

160 Taxman 173 (Allahabad)/[2007] 210 CTR 491 (Allaha...], in the case of Smt. Reena Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Meerut, in I.T. APPEAL NOS. 8 TO 11, 13, 15 AND 31 OF 1999, dated: OCTOBER 12, 2006, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad had held that :"Section 148, read with section 147, of the Income

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act of Rs.61,25,026/- out of interest and finance charges as per provisions of” 3. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in partners capital account

THE DY. CIT- 1,, DURG(CG) vs. M/S. RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT,, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act of Rs.61,25,026/- out of interest and finance charges as per provisions of” 3. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in partners capital account