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

52 CCH 00 521] (refer page no. 280 to 300 of paper book) Conclusion:[relevant para at page no.282 of paper book]. In the absence of seized material found during search, addition made in an order passed u/s 153A of the Act is not sustainable.” 9. Learned AR apart from original grounds in appeal have further submitted additional grounds challenging

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

52 CCH 00 521] (refer page no. 280 to 300 of paper book) Conclusion:[relevant para at page no.282 of paper book]. In the absence of seized material found during search, addition made in an order passed u/s 153A of the Act is not sustainable.” 9. Learned AR apart from original grounds in appeal have further submitted additional grounds challenging

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

52 CCH 00 521] (refer page no. 280 to 300 of paper book) Conclusion:[relevant para at page no.282 of paper book]. In the absence of seized material found during search, addition made in an order passed u/s 153A of the Act is not sustainable.” 9. Learned AR apart from original grounds in appeal have further submitted additional grounds challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

52,866/- made by the A.O for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. (2) The order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre is erroneous both in law and on facts. (3) Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing.” On the other hand the assessee company as a cross-objector has assailed the impugned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

52,866/- made by the A.O for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. (2) The order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre is erroneous both in law and on facts. (3) Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing.” On the other hand the assessee company as a cross-objector has assailed the impugned

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2008) stating that "Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable- tax, has escaped assessment.", the law is clear that the appellant authorities will

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the income of other person as per the provision of Section 153A, if the AO is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized have a bearing on the determination of total income. Provision of section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the income of other person as per the provision of Section 153A, if the AO is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized have a bearing on the determination of total income. Provision of section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment under Section 147(b) may be made out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the Assessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income has accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not indicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under- pricing was adopted by the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment under Section 147(b) may be made out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the Assessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income has accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not indicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under- pricing was adopted by the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment under Section 147(b) may be made out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the Assessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income has accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not indicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under- pricing was adopted by the Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

52,12,500 with the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,17,21,400 by invoking Section 69, and the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

52,12,500 with the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,17,21,400 by invoking Section 69, and the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition