C.G. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

147 of the Act for want of approval from the competent authority u/s. 151 of the Act; therefore, there was no occasion for the A.O. to have dealt with the said aspect while disposing of the objections of the assessee company vide his order dated 10.06.2016, Page 36 of APB. As the aforesaid factual contention of the assessee

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)

10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment Year 2015-16 and not to companies, which is the assessee

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)

10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment Year 2015-16 and not to companies, which is the assessee

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.

10 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 justifying its stand The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would

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 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) are culled out as follows: “7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have also gone through the judgments on which reliance was placed

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

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.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under thus section or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in the section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant

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)

147 and notice under section 148 was issued. Validity of reopening was not challenged up to Tribunal and additions were challenged on merits only. The Tribunal Restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with some directions to reexamine the issue on merits. When the matter came back to the assessing officer the assessee specifically raised the point of jurisdiction

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

26 Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur Krishan Kumar Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hissar, ITA No.4562/Del/2011 dated 24.09.2015. The Ld. A.R submitted that now when the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 30.12.2018 was in itself non-est for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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

26. The Ld. AR has assailed before us the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 by primarily focusing on two material aspects, viz. (a) that as the assessee a/w. 8 other co-owners (family members) were using the subject land for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date

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)

26,439 u/s 44AB has been examined/ accepted by the AO which ultimately includes alleged 'deposits / RTGS credits into bank' of Rs.8,31,02,597; in absence of any fresh/ new material possessed by the AO, impugned reopening be treated merely 'change of opinion' on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable

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)

26,439 u/s 44AB has been examined/ accepted by the AO which ultimately includes alleged 'deposits / RTGS credits into bank' of Rs.8,31,02,597; in absence of any fresh/ new material possessed by the AO, impugned reopening be treated merely 'change of opinion' on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable

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)

26,439 u/s 44AB has been examined/ accepted by the AO which ultimately includes alleged 'deposits / RTGS credits into bank' of Rs.8,31,02,597; in absence of any fresh/ new material possessed by the AO, impugned reopening be treated merely 'change of opinion' on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

u/s. 147 of the Act. For the sake 10 Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 141 & 142/RPR/2026 of completeness, the relevant observation of the aforesaid judgment are culled out as follows: 10. The aforesaid view came to be reiterated by the Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Dart Infrabuild Pvt Ltd5, as would