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

V. Doshi 113 ITR 22(Gujrat). This case arose under the Income Tax Act with reference to the provisions of Section 147 dealing with re-assessment. The facts were that the assessment was sought to be reopened under Section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued. Validity of reopening was not challenged upto Tribunal and additions were challenged

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.

reassessment order has been passed in violation of mandatory provisions of law and is liable to be quashed as illegal and not sustainable. As the assessee based on the additional ground of appeal has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment, the adjudication of which would not require looking

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.)

reassessment u/s148 would be invalid, non-est and thereby, consequential assessment made u/s 147 rws.143(3) dt.31- 3-15 would also be invalid, non-est and is liable to be quashed.” The Tribunal adjudicated the aforesaid issue, observing as under: “11. Ostensibly, the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were initiated by the DCIT- 1(1), Raipur, Page 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

section 45(2) r.w.s. 2 (47)(v). Ultimate addition confirmed was for Rs. 42,34,074/- only, therefore, the addition made was not in conformity with the reasons recorded and, thus, in absence of reason to believe as mandated by law u/s 147, which is sine qua non for assuming valid jurisdiction to reopen the case, the reopening u/s 147

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)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

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)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

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)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

47. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot seek substitution of his view as against a possible and plausible view arrived at by the A.O. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O while framing the reassessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

BHUWANESHWAR SHUKLA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings

BHUWANESHWAR SHUKLA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind. If for some reason, there is an error that creeps into this exercise by the AO, then the law expects the superior officer to be able to correct that error. This explains why Section 151 (1) requires an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind. If for some reason, there is an error that creeps into this exercise by the AO, then the law expects the superior officer to be able to correct that error. This explains why Section 151 (1) requires an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind. If for some reason, there is an error that creeps into this exercise by the AO, then the law expects the superior officer to be able to correct that error. This explains why Section 151 (1) requires an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner