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

147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018. In this regard, the Ld. 4 Mohammed Usman Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) Counsel referring to the assessment order submitted that though there was reference of issuing notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, there is no whisper regarding issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 7. Per contra

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

17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance and Investments v. ITO2. The facts of that case were that a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. However, the assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued

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

17. The Madras High Court held likewise in Sapthagiri Finance and Investments v. ITO2. The facts of that case were that a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. However, the assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued

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 is valid and the return filed pursuant thereto is also valid. As no change have been made to the said return of income, the return has become final. Hence, the income of the assessee has to be computed on the basis of said return of income. Therefore, we direct the AO to recompute the final income accordingly

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 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and is a nullity. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following S. Page No. N0. of the CLC The Hon'ble ITAT, 1. Shri Dev Narayan ITA No. 32/ 121 - Raipur Sahu vs. ITO RPR/2018 dated 132 of Bench 29.04.2022 LPB-3 Gulab Badgujar (2019) 179 ITD Hon'ble ITAT

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

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:- "15.2 The absence

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)

17,21,400 by invoking Section 69, and the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 is unjustified and deserves to be deleted

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)

17,21,400 by invoking Section 69, and the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed it under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), without considering the mandate of Section 50C(2), which requires referral to the DVO for fair market value determination. As this statutory procedure was ignored, the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 is unjustified and deserves to be deleted

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

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:- "15.2 The absence

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

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 the following observations

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

reassessment." 7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be 26 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

reassessment." 7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be 26 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon

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

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

17] In the circumstances, the notices issued by Assessing Officer, Mumbai under section 148 to petitioner for assessment year 2006-07 are quashed and set aside. vii) Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 289 (Mad. HC) Section 120, read with sections 124, 127 and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income-tax authorities - Jurisdiction of (Territorial jurisdiction

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

17 :: 8. We observe that when the assessee has filed the return u/s 148 on dt. 06.01.2016 the AO has not issued the notice u/s 143(2) and without issue the notice the AO has passed the assessment order, it is very settled legal position that when the assessee filed the return in response to the notice u/s

SHRI ARUN AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 214/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arun Agrawal 85, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan :Acjpa2323D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

reassessment proceeding in case of assessee." [51 taxmann.com 383 (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374] (iii) In the case of Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Hon'ble Mumbai HC held that "the likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped income, will not debar the AO from exercising his jurisdiction to assess

RAVI SHERWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

17. Consequent to our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view that as in the present case before us the assessment had been framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai u/s. 143(3), dated 30.03.2015 in clear contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, which divested him of his jurisdiction over the case

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

17. There is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by Id. DR that the proceedings u/s 263 are for the benefit of revenue and not for assessee. 18. However, u/s 263 the Id. Commissioner cannot revise a non est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice U/S 143(2), which

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.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Private Limited Company and derives income from Manufacturing and sale of Gold Ornaments/ Silver items. Regular return of income for assessment year 12- 13 was filed on 24.08.2012 declaring total income at Rs.10,13,920/-. Assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 23.03.2015 by making