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

unexplained cash credits u/s68, when it was not the issue of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; it is in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014; No.20/2015; No.5 of 2016; Id AO cannot go beyond the issues mentioned in the reasons for selection of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; Id AO is barred from looking into unconnected/ independent issue(s) other

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

SUBHASH MURARKA, 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 Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 on protective basis.” 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has on this issue observed and held as follows: 4. During the course of appeal proceedings, the following notices/letters for hearing were issued to the appellant, but till date the appellant has neither filed any response nor filed any submissions in support

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (i.e., u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very issue'; addition made on an 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the 'reasons recorded' earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law; reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (i.e., u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very issue'; addition made on an 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the 'reasons recorded' earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law; reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (i.e., u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very issue'; addition made on an 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the 'reasons recorded' earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law; reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

credit and required to be taxed as per section Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 115BBE of the Act. Since the assessee has concealed its income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated for the relevant A. Y. 2013- 14. [Addition: Rs. 1,21,66,524/-] 5. From the data back

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

credit and required to be taxed as per section Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 115BBE of the Act. Since the assessee has concealed its income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated for the relevant A. Y. 2013- 14. [Addition: Rs. 1,21,66,524/-] 5. From the data back

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) ..

unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings?”. 2. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in accepting that the share application money had already been surrendered before the Hon’ble ITSC, Kolkata whereas the concerned assessee had not approached the Hon’ble ITSC. 3. “Whether on points

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) ..

unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings?”. 2. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in accepting that the share application money had already been surrendered before the Hon’ble ITSC, Kolkata whereas the concerned assessee had not approached the Hon’ble ITSC. 3. “Whether on points

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

credit but the ground of the department as emanating in the assessment order is that there was cash deposit of Rs.2 lacs in the bank account of the assessee which remained unexplained, therefore, the said cash should be taxable as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and the correct provision therefore is Section

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

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)

unexplained cash credit is highly illegal, bad in law, unsustainable and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, the Ld.AO 8i the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the cash deposits has immediate & proximate nexus with the cash withdrawals effectuated by the appellant and hence, the source of cash deposits was sufficiently explained during assessment proceedings. Hence

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

credit could be deemed to be her income by virtue of Section 69A of the Act. Hence, in the facts of this case a legitimate inference can be drawn that the assessee had income which she had deposited in Bank accounts and, as such, that Income was subject to tax. 8.5.4 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

reassess is limited and based on the fulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)” 9. With these observations, the assessment framed by the ITO-3(1) Raipur vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.10.2018 in absence of an order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act having been passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rahul Tyagi Golden Homes 13, New Vip Club, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aitpt6198H

unexplained cash credits u/s.68; assessee was not under obligation to maintain books of account & has not maintained books of 3 Rahul Tyagi Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur account which is a pre-condition for making addition u/s.68; in absence of books of account maintained for AY16-17, addition of Rs.23,94,038 made u/s68 is unjustified and is liable

SAKET PRODUCTS AND ROLLING MILL PVT. LTD., SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 840/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saket Products & Rolling Mill Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Private Limited, Aykar Bhawan, Kharsia Road, Subhash Marg, Bhaiyathan Road, Ambikapur, C. G., 497001 Surajpur, Surguja (C.G.) 497229 Pan: Aajcs2709N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement

reassessment proceeding is without jurisdiction and the assessment order be annulled.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, a rice miller, is also engaged in trading of cereals, pulses, spices, edible items and manufacturing of iron & steel bars, filed its original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year declaring income of Rs.13