GOPAL SPONGE & POWER PVT. LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

revise can be invoked in the case of no/lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue of section 801A(4)(iv) to the file of the AO without proper appreciating the explanation of assessee

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

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

revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi

AVINASH INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

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.31/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Avinash Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company) Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Aabcj32884H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

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

u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 28.03.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “GROUND NO. I 1. That the ex-parte Revision Order

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

revision of the assessment order is tentatively being proposed. Such a notice is not required. 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 of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS ARYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

revised grounds of appeal vide letter dated 14.12.2022, which read as under:- 1. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,07,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances

TOUCHSTONE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

revision, by invoking provisions of section 263, in original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 02.11.2019 for the A.Y. 2017/18 as original assessment order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax erred in invoking the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

revised the order u/s 263 of the Act. On appeal, the High Court observed that as the assessee company with an authorized share capital of Rs. 1.36 crores had raised nearly a sum of Rs. 32 crores on account of premium and had chosen not to go in for increase 32 ACIT-1(1),Raipur Vs. M/s. R. R. Industrial

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

section 68 of the Act and issue 3 regarding compensation of Rs. 71,75,902/- claimed as exemption u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, were queried and compliance/ explanations were sought from the assessee. Necessary response was furnished by the assessee. However, on perusal of the response of the assessee on the queries raised, Ld. PCIT has observed that

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

68, appex court observed as under: 6 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 “……. The expression 'the assessee offers an explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assesses……” 1. iv) Now , let us revert back to the facts of this case

JITENDRA GUPTA,SURAJPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 56/Rpr/2021 कर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jitendra Gupta Prop. : M/S Maa Vaishnav Goods Carrier, Salka, Aghina, Surajpur, (C.G.) Pan : Arbpg 1102 H . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-2016, Which In Turn Emanated Out Of The Assessment Order Dt 28/11/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 263(1) of the Act fails. Albeit the foresaid twin satisfaction drawn from the assessment records may trigger the revisionary jurisdiction, yet such shall not automatically empower the revisionary tax authorities to conclude the revision proceedings without obeying additional dual riders such as; (i) making or causing to be made such enquiry as necessary and (ii) according an opportunity

M.J. STEELS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016

u/s 253. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 11 AY – 2015-2016 2. The short issue under this appeals is that, the appellant company challenged the validity of revisionary action directing the AO for fresh adjudication against an apparent error in applying the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. The appellant raised a solitary legal ground