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)

unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (i.e., u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very issue'; addition made on an 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the 'reasons recorded' earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law; reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh

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)

unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (i.e., u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very issue'; addition made on an 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the 'reasons recorded' earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law; reassessment made u/s 147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 232/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Jain Pro. Jain Borewell Ganj Road, Nawapara-Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-493 881 Pan : Affpj6898B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed by Assessing Officer for which in reality, procedure of granting approval to the proposal of AO to issue notice u/s 148 as prescribed u/s 151(1) was not followed properly and judicially. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 5, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) has erred in confirming

HARJINDAR SINGH BAL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Also, the A.O observed that though the assessee was in receipt of exempt income of Rs.78,147/- from various streams but had not offered any disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Considering the fact that the assessee had claimed to have incurred interest expenditure of Rs.45,861/- on the loans raised from two persons

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68, when it was not the issue of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; it is in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014; No.20/2015; No.5 of 2016; Id AO cannot go beyond the issues mentioned in the reasons for selection of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; Id AO is barred from looking into unconnected/ independent issue(s) other

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68, when it was not the issue of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; it is in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014; No.20/2015; No.5 of 2016; Id AO cannot go beyond the issues mentioned in the reasons for selection of 'limited scrutiny' assessment under CASS; Id AO is barred from looking into unconnected/ independent issue(s) other

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.

unexplained share application money under section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A), wherein the assessee succeeded to have its ground of appeal allowed, raised pertaining to legality of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Now the department is in appeal before us against

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

cash credit u/sec. 68 of the I.T. Act and accordingly being added back to the total income of the assessee.” 6. That, being further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the appeal was allowed partly, and similarly in all the matters emanating, therefore, the Revenue being aggrieved, had preferred the appeals

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

credit and required to be taxed as per section Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 115BBE of the Act. Since the assessee has concealed its income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated for the relevant A. Y. 2013- 14. [Addition: Rs. 1,21,66,524/-] 5. From the data back

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

credit and required to be taxed as per section Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 115BBE of the Act. Since the assessee has concealed its income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated for the relevant A. Y. 2013- 14. [Addition: Rs. 1,21,66,524/-] 5. From the data back

NELSON YONA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nelson Yona Near Shiv Mandir, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan: Adbpy8725E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act passed by the assessing officer dated 08/11/2018 and order u/s. 250 of the Act passed by Id. CIT(A), NFAC dated 27/01/2013 is illegal and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act was concerned, the same was made by the A.O by referring to the bank accounts, cheque leaves, bank passbook, PAN cards etc. which were found during the course of search proceedings conducted on 23.02.2006 at the premises of Shri 10 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 Ramesh Kedia

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act was concerned, the same was made by the A.O by referring to the bank accounts, cheque leaves, bank passbook, PAN cards etc. which were found during the course of search proceedings conducted on 23.02.2006 at the premises of Shri 10 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 Ramesh Kedia

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

cash credits; while, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon him u/s68 and revenue has not disproved the documentary evidences/ materials submitted before him; addition is not justified & is liable to be deleted. Gr.No.3 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.11,000 on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

reassess the returned income in an arbitrary manner without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. The law is well settled in this regard. Reference can be made to the judicial precedents viz. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del); Pr.CIT vs. Saumya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj); Principal Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

reassess the returned income in an arbitrary manner without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. The law is well settled in this regard. Reference can be made to the judicial precedents viz. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del); Pr.CIT vs. Saumya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj); Principal Commissioner of Income