DAMANJEET SINGH OBEROI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Damanjeet Singh Oberoi Dcit, Circle 1(1), Raipur C/O Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Vs. Building, Kk Road, Moudhapara, Raipur – 492001 Pan: Aaepo3096L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026

unexplained money u/s 69A on the basis of ledger account found at third party premises (Babylon Gr.); AO has not brought any material evidence on record for the alleged cash receipts, and therefore, application of sec 115BBE is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be deleted." Gr.No.5 "The appellant craves leave, to add, urge

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

unexplained money u/sec. 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee read with sec. 115BBE of the Act. 4. That, when the matter travelled before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, it had simply extracted the findings of the AO in the assessment order, however, has not recorded any findings on facts for the reason that there

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. SANJAY KUMAR PUNJABI, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee submits that it is not denied that reasonable opportunities were provided, however, he was prevented from reasons beyond his control to respond to the said notices. In the same spectrum of facts, I refer to the decision of ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases 4 Income Tax Officer Vs. Sanjay

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)

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 that of the appellant and made the addition

KESHNATH SAHU, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshnath Sahu Shri Balaji Construction Company, Near Power House, Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari (C.G)-493 773 Pan : Cqips0706B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed is illegal, unsustainable, ab initio void.” 3 Keshnath Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a salaried employee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 11.03.2015, declaring an income of Rs.2,09,790/-. 3. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceeding in the case of one M/s. Shakti Construction (PAN: ABDFS3741A

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

reassessment proceedings were invoked u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) after recording reasons and getting approval from the Pr. CIT-2, Raipur. In response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income dated 27.11.2019, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. Further, statutory notices u/s.143

DHARAMPAL MALIK, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

reassessment proceedings were invoked u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) after recording reasons and getting approval from the Pr. CIT-2, Raipur. In response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income dated 27.11.2019, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. Further, statutory notices u/s.143

HEMANT KUMAR TIKARIHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.97 & 98/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

reassessment proceedings called for the information but due to noncompliance of the appellant, the AO concluded the assessment ex-parte. 5.2 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant, and material available on record, remand report have been carefully examined. The appellant has furnished a cash book in support of the sources of cash deposits, claiming receipts from contract

HEMANT KUMAR TIKARIHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.97 & 98/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

reassessment proceedings called for the information but due to noncompliance of the appellant, the AO concluded the assessment ex-parte. 5.2 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant, and material available on record, remand report have been carefully examined. The appellant has furnished a cash book in support of the sources of cash deposits, claiming receipts from contract

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

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and the correct provision therefore is Section 69A of the Act and not Section 68 as had been invoked by the A.O. 6. Be that as it may, it is also noted at Para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that an ex-parte order has been passed by the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAGANNATHDAS HARICHANDMAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

reassessment proceedings found that the appellant had received share application money of Rs. 1,87,50,000/- from 19 different Kolkata based companies in the year under consideration. The AO after intensive inquiries pertaining to funds received in the garb of share capital and by taking reference of the statements of Sri Shyam Sundar Agrawal held that the appellant failed

SOURABH AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.735/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sourabh Agrawal, Prop. Sawaria Traders, Shop No.217, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Appa0229M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

money etc. found in the possession of the assessee. The alleged unexplained cash payment of Rs.25,00,000/- made to Shree Shyam Sales Corporation was with regard to certain purchases made by the assessee. In other words, the assessee had incurred expenses and he has offered no explanation about the source of such expenditure. In this regard, the appropriate provision

NIDHI JAIN,GALI NO., SBI COLONY, FAFADIH,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (C.G.), CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR (C.G.)

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 659/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147, however, during the entire proceedings when the assessee was issued with notices u/s 148, 144B, 142(1), letter, SCN u/s 144 and additional SCN, chooses not to comply accordingly, Ld. AO has completed the assessment on best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act after considering the information available on record. In conclusion, an addition

LOKESHWAR KUMAR SAHU,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX ASSESSING OFFICER, DHAMTARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Shri Balaji Construction Co. Near Rest House Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ctnps5629H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reassessment proceedings were initiated on a protective basis, which is not legally valid, and erroneously treated the same as substantive, thereby uploading an assessment that lacked jurisdiction from the outset. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ?3,50,000 under section 69A despite the assessee having explained 3 Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Dhamtari Vs. Income

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A. If the appellant claims that he is eligible for any claim he should have furnished supporting documents. The appellate proceedings are first line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has been done by the AO. However, the appellant failed to avail the same by non-complying. From the assessment order, it is evident