HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

200 (SC)1: (refer page no. 135 to 145 of paper book) Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "what is contemplated by Section 263 is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack

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)

200 which is ,'cash ,withdrawal ·from bank'; while as per annexure to the proposal form, escaped income is 'Rs.5,95,39,179 on the different issue of 'deposits/ credits into bank'; approval granted u/s 151(2) without application of mind in a mechanical manner without verifying the facts/issue involved; in absence of a valid approval granted u/s

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)

200 which is ,'cash ,withdrawal ·from bank'; while as per annexure to the proposal form, escaped income is 'Rs.5,95,39,179 on the different issue of 'deposits/ credits into bank'; approval granted u/s 151(2) without application of mind in a mechanical manner without verifying the facts/issue involved; in absence of a valid approval granted u/s

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)

200 which is ,'cash ,withdrawal ·from bank'; while as per annexure to the proposal form, escaped income is 'Rs.5,95,39,179 on the different issue of 'deposits/ credits into bank'; approval granted u/s 151(2) without application of mind in a mechanical manner without verifying the facts/issue involved; in absence of a valid approval granted u/s

SHREEMATI JASWANTI DEVI L/H OF LATE SHRI RANDHIR SINGH DAHIYA,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.13/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without fulfilling all mandatory conditions is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.24,79,290/- as unexplained cash deposit without considering facts and evidences in their

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

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 )

200 80,660 11.3 800 11.4.1 2009-10 153A/143(3) 856060 10,10,152 11.3 27,50,684 27,50,680 8,84,472 11.4.1 2010-11 153A/143(3) 923110 25,000 6 29,66,078 29,66,080 20,17,968 11.3 2011-12 153A/143(3

M/S NRTMT(INDIA) PVT. LTD,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

200/-. 9. The A.O, thereafter, framed the assessment for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2018-19 vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, wherein based on the difference in the quantity of physical inventory of raw material, finished goods, spare parts and consumable items that was got prepared and valued by the department from a registered valuer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. M/S. N. R. TMT(INDIA) PVT. LTD., RAIGARH

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

200/-. 9. The A.O, thereafter, framed the assessment for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2018-19 vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, wherein based on the difference in the quantity of physical inventory of raw material, finished goods, spare parts and consumable items that was got prepared and valued by the department from a registered valuer

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:

200/- and two shops valued at Rs. 5,54,400/- totaling to Rs. 5,55,16,600/- as sale consideration and after deducting indexed acquisition cost of land at Rs. 1,58,39,316/- has computed Rs. 3,96,77,284/- as LTCG. According to the Ld. AO, since, the assessee had entered into joint venture with M/s Biltech Engineering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment Explanation.-In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) On careful reading of amended provision, it is abundantly clear that before 01.10.2014, AO was not empowered to make reference to DVO u/s 142A(1) of the Act without expressing his dissatisfaction about

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment Explanation.-In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) On careful reading of amended provision, it is abundantly clear that before 01.10.2014, AO was not empowered to make reference to DVO u/s 142A(1) of the Act without expressing his dissatisfaction about