SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits

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

68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - 13 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1) “I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been I made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

ASHOK KUMAR MALOO, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash sales deposited in a bank account, ii treated as unexplained under Sections 68 or 69A, cannot be taxed under

SHRI ASHIT KUMAR DEY,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - “I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

SHRI SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DUHLANI,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Bil/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mahesh Kumar Duhlani Main Road, P. O. Katoghora, Distt. Korba (C.G) Pan : Aejpd4102K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (Cg) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

cash with the lender. Thus, the facts emanating from the material available on record I do not find any infirmity in the observation of the AO that the money deposited in different accounts is of the assessee which is routed back in the garb of loan. Thus, as discussed here in above the ground of appeal of the assessee

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

SUNITA SHERWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(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.506/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sunita Sherwani S-19, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Attps9943C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

deposit into bank account cannot be considered as income u/s. 68 of the Act and it should be u/s. 69/69A of the Act. In our opinion, mentioning the wrong section is not fatal, we have to see only the 15 Smt. Sunita Sherwani Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur substance not the form. Being so, Inter alia, we confirm the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR vs. AVIRAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

Section 68 of the Act, 1961. In response, the assessee filed ITR, Computation, Bank Statement of Share subscriber. The Learned AO on perusal of these documents have found that the entire sum received by the assessee company was from family members and family concerns in which such members are either Director or partners. To verify the genuineness of the share

RAGHUBIR SINGH SISODIA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JANJGIR-CHAMPA, JANJGIR-CHAMPA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 176/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Raghubir Singh Sisodia Ward No.20, Near Sadar School, Daily Market, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Pin-495668 Pan : Bzmps8275F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

68,640/- a/w. agriculture income of Rs.5,00,284/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assesee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Although the CIT(Appeals) was principally in agreement with the view taken by the A.O, but at the same time, considering the cash withdrawals of Rs.5.87 lac that were made by the assessee over the period

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

deposits in the bank appearing as HEFT and RTGS and cash represent the sale proceeds from various sundry debtors and the same is 37 ITO-1 Vs. Shri Parmanand Gupta CO No.02/RPR/2022 reflected in the sales account. The addition made by the AO is hereby-s deleted. The ground of appeal is allowed. (Relief Rs. 522,81,663/-)” After having

PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act based on his observations that 9 Lender Mrs Sulochana Godhwani and Anju Godhwani has no idea whether they have filing the ITR or not, they have no idea about the cash deposit

INDO LAHRI BIO POWER LTD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.529/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Indo Lahri Bio Power Limited 38, Saheed Smarak Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaaci9125K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

deposited as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 as the cash has been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. The addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT-Appeal is unjustified, unwarranted and - at uncalled for. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-Appeal

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

deposited as cash on 21.04.2014 1,000/- Bank balance 12 Sita Ram Yadav 819800 2,10,000/- Cash from own past savings 3,41,039 Loan given to L P Khedia in earlier years, received back 2,67,000/- Loan given to Balaji Builders earlier years, received back 1,761/- Bank balance 13 Tarachand Kashyap 366000 2,80,000/- Cash

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

SANDEEP SINGH,JUNA LAKHANPUR vs. ITO AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

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

68 of the Act. 7. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, or alter/withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Information was received by the A.O that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.13.91 lacs (approx.) in his bank account during the year which was not commensurate with the income of Rs.3

NISHA NANWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following

SMT SMT DHEERAJ DEVI KOTHARI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Dheeraj Devi Kothari, Near Prakash Medicos, Balgovind Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G) Pan : Aezpk9549K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the 'Act', in respect of the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. We find