ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment notice, and the final order were also issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act. 12. From the above, it is obvious that the procedure under Section 143(2) is intended to ensure that an adverse order is passed against the assessee only after affording the assessee a proper opportunity. Therefore, the Question to be considered is whether

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.

delay involved in filing of the present appeal had occasioned for bonafide reasons and circumstances which were beyond the control of the legal heir of the assessee (since deceased), therefore, the same in all fairness merits to be condoned. 4. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee who had though made cash deposits

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

147 rws 144 dt. 29/03/2022 is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law as the approval u/s 151 from Ld. PCIT, Raipur-1, Raipur dt 31/03/2021 is not signed, following the order of our own Raipur Bench in case of Manoj Kumar Sahu Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai [ITA no. 474/Rpr/2025, dt. 22/09/2025], and hence the impugned order dt. 29/03/2022

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 1722 days involved in filing of the present cross-objection by the L/heir of the assesssee. Before parting, we may herein observe, that as the assessee even otherwise by way of the present cross- objection is assailing the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for reopening his case u/s 147

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

condonation of the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 2.2 We have given a thoughtful consideration and considering the circumstances leading to the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal r.w the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court admit the same. 3. We shall first deal with the additional

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd ground, a legal ground, challenges the validity of reopening of assessment. The 3rd ground is in respect of merit of the additions made in the assessment order. 2 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act passed by the assessing officer dated 08/11/2018 and order u/s. 250 of the Act passed by Id. CIT(A), NFAC dated 27/01/2013 is illegal and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

condone the delay of 396 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee through the Ground of appeal No.2 that though assessment has been completed u/s.147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), however, no valid notice u/s.148

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

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional

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

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional

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

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional

LAXMI KANT DUBEY, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being illegal and without jurisdiction for it was initiated without fulfilling all the conditions specified in the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in confirming assessment order passed treating income tax return filed

SANDEEP KAUR GILL, RAIPUR ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 873 days deserves to be condoned and the matter should be adjudicated afresh based on merits of the case and facts available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 9,08,810/-. Thereafter

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Ld. Assessing Officer without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in arbitrarily rejecting the objection raised by the Appellant against the draft

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 244 days involved in filing the present penalty appeal is condoned after taking guidance from the following judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case

HIMANSHU GOYAL,DHAMTARI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the matter is permitted for hearing and adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31/07/2012 declaring total income at Rs.6,88,010/-. Thereafter on the basis of certain information, which was believed that the income of the assessee chargeable

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-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 : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (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 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 06.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,440/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground

MUKESH KUMAR MITTAL, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.04/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mukesh Kumar Mittal Bhaiyathan Road, Post-Surajpur (C.G)-497 229 Pan: Amlpm8514A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed u/s.143(3)/147 dt. 19/11/2018 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and bad in law, and therefore all consequential orders, i.e. order passed u/s. 263 by Ld. PCIT, order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 263 dt. 18/03/2022 [which has been appealed against before Ld. CIT(A)], and appellate order u/s.250 dt. 31/01/2024 [which is now appealed