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)

reassessment proceedings completed invoking the provisions of section 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessment were rightly completed under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, to support such contention she read the facts of case from the analysis

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)

reassessment proceedings completed invoking the provisions of section 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessment were rightly completed under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, to support such contention she read the facts of case from the analysis

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.

12 & 2012-13. Thereafter, this case was re-opened, on the basis of statement of Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, after lapse of 4 years and hence case is covered under first proviso to section 147 of the Act which mandates that if the case was scrutinized u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act then the same can be re-opened

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 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2009. No new material or evidence was available with the AO to form reason to believe as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention that the id. AO has not held the discount/deduction given/granted as non genuine. The facts as discussed above reveals that

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.

12 Rahul Bajpai Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 6.6. The assessee contends that copy of approval was not supplied to him by the officer. The assessment order indicates that the approval was obtained by the A.O. before initiation of proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. The submission of the appellant shows that

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)

12. Ld. AR further submitted that the action of Ld PCIT was beyond his jurisdiction in invoking the revisionary provisions of section 263 on the basis of a non-Est assessment on account of non-issuance of compulsory notice u/s 143(2). Such a peculiar situation on issue under deliberation has been discussed and decided in the following judgments, upon

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

12 Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 30.12.2018 was without making proper enquiries and due application of mind. 6. The Pr. CIT was however not inclined to accept the explanation of the assessee. The Pr. CIT was of the view that considering the fact that

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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

Section 54B of the Act. 9. The Pr. CIT based on the aforesaid facts, held a conviction, that the A.O while framing the reassessment had failed to examine the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54B of the Act, which, thus, had rendered the order of reassessment passed by him u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023 as erroneous

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 of Rs.1,02,80,685/- (supra) in his saving bank account, which were not disclosed

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 379/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act w.e.f 1st April 2021. Broadly speaking, the changes made available on the statute by the legislature in all its wisdom are, viz. (i) Section 148 now mandates the assessing officer to initiate proceedings only based on prior information and with the prior approval of the specified authority; (ii) Section 148A requires

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

section 153A on the date of search shall stand abate and the AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income’ of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both

LAKHICHAND SIDARA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

u/s 147 was valid. 11. In backdrop of the above discussion and facts, it is explicitly clear that the material based on which the reopening was done, was available 6 with the AO during the assessment proceeding and the same was duly considered during the original assessment proceedings while accepting the amount of taxable LTCG and determining the taxable 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)

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or re-compute the 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