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)

23. Insofar as Mr. Suresh Kumar's contention supporting the proceedings under Section 147 and 148 of I.T. Act are concerned, for the aforesaid reasons, such contention would in fact go contrary to the intention of the legislature as depicted by the provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the I.T. Act. There would not be any difficulty in accepting

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)

23. Insofar as Mr. Suresh Kumar's contention supporting the proceedings under Section 147 and 148 of I.T. Act are concerned, for the aforesaid reasons, such contention would in fact go contrary to the intention of the legislature as depicted by the provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the I.T. Act. There would not be any difficulty in accepting

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.

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Now the department is in appeal before us against the order of Ld CIT(A). 3. At the outset Ld CITDR submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of Act when the survey u/s 133A was conducted on the premises of the assesseee company and it was noticed that

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

section 147 of the Act itself and is on number of occasions by various judgments of High Court and Supreme Court held to be mandatory pre- requirement. In view of such settled law, it is not necessary to refer to any judgment. Revenue is unable to bring to our notice any aspect or element which did not form part

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

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)

reassessment proceedings the Learned A.O had raised specific queries vide statutory notices u/s 142(1) dated 01.07.2019, copy whereof is placed on Page No. 82 to 83 of the Paper Book and the Learned A.O had even issued show cause notice for addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of alleged principal amount of loans given in cash

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

reassessment order was in itself passed on the basis of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act, therefore, the Pr. CIT in absence of a valid order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act could not have revised the same u/s. 263 of the Act. It was submitted

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same was to be given weightage. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 18.10.2024 disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 5,61, 14,943/- u/s. 54B of the Act and directed the A.O to revise the reassessment order passed

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)

reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated

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

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)

reassessment proceedings, which began on 01.06.2021, to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding the time stipulated