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

SMT. PRABHA KHANDELWAL L/H OF LATE OMPRAKASH KHANDELWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 55/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Late Omprakash Khandelwal (Through Legal Heir:Smt.Prabha Khandelwal) B-107, Surya Residency, Opposite M.J. College Kohka Road, Bhilai(C.G.)-490023 Pan: Anspk3247N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reassessment u/s. 147”. 12. Ostensibly, the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act had been initiated by the AO, for the reason that though the assessee who had not filed his return of income for A.Y 2010-11, but had made substantial amount of cash deposits

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

147, dated 30.12.2018. It was further observed by the Pr. CIT that though the assessee company during the year under consideration had made a cash deposit of Rs. 60 lac in its bank account no. 164010200012546 with Axis bank, Branch: Bilaspur, which, inter alia, was a reason for reopening of its case, however, the AO despite himself not being convinced

HARJINDAR SINGH BAL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings was mechanical and granted without application of mind." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 14.10.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 7,01,600/-. On the basis of certain information, viz. (i) that the assessee despite absence of liquid funds had made cash deposit of Rs.8 lac in his bank account

MAHABIR PRASAD,SARGUJA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mahabir Prasad Pcit, Raipur-1 Ajirma, Raghavpuri P.S Raipur Vs Jaynagar, Surajpur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh Pan : Bphpp 3014 E Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

reassessment order u/s 147 rws 143(3) dt. 5-12-18 to verify the source of cash deposits into bank

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)

reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh (2008) (Raj); Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd (2023) (Del HC). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s 148/147 is invalid as based on borrowed satisfaction of escaped income of Rs.8,31,02,597 on Pradeep Kumar Agrawal

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)

reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh (2008) (Raj); Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd (2023) (Del HC). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s 148/147 is invalid as based on borrowed satisfaction of escaped income of Rs.8,31,02,597 on Pradeep Kumar Agrawal

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)

reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh (2008) (Raj); Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd (2023) (Del HC). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s 148/147 is invalid as based on borrowed satisfaction of escaped income of Rs.8,31,02,597 on Pradeep Kumar Agrawal

JUMMAN LAL YADAV,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 290/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jumman Lal Yadav Deep Chowk, Kusumkasa, Balod, Durg (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Acmpy0168R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

reassessment is not subject matter of current appeal. It is matter of record that subsequent notice dt. 01.10.2018 issued u/s 142(1) remain unserved. Final notice u/s 142(1) was served through affixture. In absence of any response from the assessee the impugned order was framed u/s 144, wherein the afore mentioned cash deposit in the account along with

PRAVEEN SHAILEENA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 72/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Parveen Shaileena Behind Ankur Hospital, Hanuman Mandir, Jail Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7678N

reassessment made u/s147 dt.19-12-17 would be invalid, and is liable to be quashed." Additional Gr.No.2: 3 Parveen Shaileena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reasons are wrongly recorded for Rs.20,03,000 being cash deposits into bank, merely on presumption & surmises, on unverified information

SURENDRA KUMAR CHANDRAKAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 193/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

147, reopening u/s148 would be invalid; liable to be quashed; relied on Well Trans Logistics India P Ltd (2024) (Del HC); Lakhmani Mewaldas ( I976) (SC); Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC); Mohanlal ChampalaI Jain (2019) (Born HC); Shamshad Khan (2017) (Del HC); Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon (2018) (Guj)." Additional Gr.No.2: “On the facts and circumstances of the case

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

cash deposits of Rs.1,08,11,930/- as against Rs.22,29,300/-. It is also evident from record that the ITS details were never provided to the assessee for his response. The Ld. Sr. DR also could not furnish any evidence to demonstrate that ITS details were duly supplied to the assessee based on which the reasons were recorded

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

cash deposits of Rs.1,08,11,930/- as against Rs.22,29,300/-. It is also evident from record that the ITS details were never provided to the assessee for his response. The Ld. Sr. DR also could not furnish any evidence to demonstrate that ITS details were duly supplied to the assessee based on which the reasons were recorded

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

cash deposits of Rs.1,08,11,930/- as against Rs.22,29,300/-. It is also evident from record that the ITS details were never provided to the assessee for his response. The Ld. Sr. DR also could not furnish any evidence to demonstrate that ITS details were duly supplied to the assessee based on which the reasons were recorded

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

cash deposits. The assessment order had been passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act since there was no compliance from the assessee. 4. That against the said addition, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the said authority had dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows: 3 Hemant Kumar

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

cash deposits. The assessment order had been passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act since there was no compliance from the assessee. 4. That against the said addition, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the said authority had dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows: 3 Hemant Kumar

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI, BHILAI vs. AMIT GAUTAM, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 566/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 21.03.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 ITO Vs. Amit Gautam 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as under: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting

ANAND FOODS,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 239/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

147 are illegal and invalid, therefore, the same are liable to be dropped. 4. The objections of the assessee are rejected by the Ld. AO stating that the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2021 was sent on the last known address of the assessee by speed post No. EC1888518641IN. Hence, it is established that the notice u/s 148 was properly issued