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

148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find ourselves unable to sustain the submissions addressed by Mr. Agrawal. In the facts of our case, the failure to comply with Section 143(2) was conceded. The reassessment action

SATYA ENTERPRISES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Satya Enterprises Ward No.3, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adcfs1415L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find ourselves unable to sustain the submissions addressed by Mr. Agrawal. In the facts of our case, the failure to comply with Section 143(2) was conceded. The reassessment action

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)

section 148 does not absolve the Learned A.O from his duty to issue notice u/s 143(2). TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Sl. Following No. Page No. of the CLC 1. Smt. Gayatri Hon'ble ITAT, ITA No. 87 - 105 of Sharma vs. ITO 461/JP/2018 Jaipur Bench LPB-I 2. Hon'ble High PCIT-III vs. Kamia

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)

2. The assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is illegal and void-ab-initio, as it was initiated based on search-related information obtained from a third party, attracting Section 153C and not Section 147., since Section 153C excludes the applicability of Section 147 in such cases, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed

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)

2. The assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is illegal and void-ab-initio, as it was initiated based on search-related information obtained from a third party, attracting Section 153C and not Section 147., since Section 153C excludes the applicability of Section 147 in such cases, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 07.01.2008 was issued to the assessee company. In compliance, the assessee company filed its return of income wherein its initially returned income (gross) was increased by Rs.19.06 Crores (supra). The assessee company claimed that the amount of Rs. 19.06 Crores (supra) had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI VINAY AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

2 & 3/RPR/2025 Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund 16. The Finance Act, 2021 had substituted the entire scheme of reassessment under Sections 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI VINAY AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

2 & 3/RPR/2025 Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund 16. The Finance Act, 2021 had substituted the entire scheme of reassessment under Sections 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

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.

147 of the Act. despite the appellant's request. 6.2. There is no dispute that the A.O. recorded the reasons prior to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The material available on record indicates that the A.O. provided the appellant with the reasons before the reassessment proceedings were completed. As a matter of fact, the appellant admitted

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,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.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. For the sake 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 be evident from the following observations which appear in that decision

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 05.07.2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023. 2 Kamlesh Kukreja Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 2

ANIL KUMAR PAREKH, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anil Kumar Parekh C/O. Madhu Traders, Station Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Akepp0240E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. For the sake 9 Anil Kumar Parekh Vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari 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 be evident from

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. For the sake 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 be evident from the following observations which appear in that decision

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

Section 148; nor any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration, therefore, the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and thus, the consequential assessment framed by him u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 30.12.2018 was invalid and non- est in the eyes of law; AND (ii). that as the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

2) The reassessment proceedings have to be invoked within a span of 4 years however in the case of the assessee the same was reopened after 6 years. As per old provisions of the Act, Notice u/s. 148 could be issued for 4 years from the end of A.Y. Further, Notice u/s. 148 could have been issued upto 6 years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

2) The reassessment proceedings have to be invoked within a span of 4 years however in the case of the assessee the same was reopened after 6 years. As per old provisions of the Act, Notice u/s. 148 could be issued for 4 years from the end of A.Y. Further, Notice u/s. 148 could have been issued upto 6 years

ACIT (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S. BARBARIK PROJECT LTD., SURAJPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2021 & Cross Objection No.20/Rpr/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.70/Rpr/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Acit (Central) M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park, Surajpur (C.G.) [Pan: Aadcb 4662 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

reassessment u/s 148 before completion assessment or the deadline i.e. 30/09/2016, so the return submitted by the assessee has to be deemed as accepted as such. 9. We also observe that the CBDT circular No.549 dated 31/10/1989 (1990) 823 CTR (SC) (1) makes it abundantly clear that once an assessee does not received a notice u/s 143(2) within

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

2. Whether the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24-10-2013 was valid in the eyes of law or a nullity as has been claimed by the assessee? 3. If the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had 39 Smt. Aruna Tiwari