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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

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.

loss account would also include any notes thereto or documents annexed thereto. Thus the notes to the account should be taken into account to determine the net profits for working out the book profits in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to pass an assessment order dated 30 January 2018 under Section

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)

carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group

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)

carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,55,66,921/-, while for its book profit u/s.115JB witnessed no modification. 4. Subsequently the A.O reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 14.03.2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee company. The A.O thereafter framed the reassessment vide his order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 28.03.2014, cannot be sustained for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, thus, uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 33 DCIT (Central Circle-1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. 21. Although we have upheld the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

reassessment and nothing more and thus he read not stated how he had come to reason to believe that income has escaped that assessment, such notice lacked validity”. 11 I.T.A. No.173/RPR/2019 CO No. 26/RPR/2019 4. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del HC). In this judgment Hon’ble Delhi HC has held that: “In absence

SPECTRUM INFONET PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

Loss a/c as on 31/3/2010 is only Rs.21,41,688/- and that too on account of interest income only. So it is not known wherefrom such amounts were credited and to whom it were transferred besides its source, nature, purpose and reflection in the A/cs of the assessee. No question was asked by the AO about the source of this

SPECTRUM INFONET PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

Loss a/c as on 31/3/2010 is only Rs.21,41,688/- and that too on account of interest income only. So it is not known wherefrom such amounts were credited and to whom it were transferred besides its source, nature, purpose and reflection in the A/cs of the assessee. No question was asked by the AO about the source of this

THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SANKALP REALITIES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

carried forward as WIP (construction part). Apropos, the difference in the value of land, it was submitted by the assessee that as the land of its project, viz. “Aishwarya Residency” of Rs.29.67 lac was not debited to the profit & loss account, therefore, for the said reason it was not required to be credited in the closing stock disclosed