NAVRATAN JEWELLERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

68, 69, and 69A of the Act and tax under section 115BBE was made without any proper basis and in complete disregard of the facts and evidence on record. The assessment was illegal, invalid, contrary to law, and liable to be quashed rather than remanded. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, unsustainable and requires to be set aside

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

68 by the Ld AO was on the basis of his presumption that the credit entries shown are representing shortage of cash. Apparently, no enquiry was conducted to prove this contention, thus the same was not supported with any material evidence. On the contrary the assessee had submitted relevant documents. In view of aforesaid observations, we do not find

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND vs. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI SHRISHRIMAL, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Rpr/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Ward-Mahasamund, 31, M.B. Building, Gandhi Chowk, Chhattisgarh Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Pan No. : Ajgps 0562 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Amit M. Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case Whether The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,12,98,657/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Calling For Remand Report From The Ao On The Issue Of Unexplained Increase In Capital U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. Any Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Assessee Is An Individual Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30Th March, 2019, Showing A Total Income Of Rs.7,03,830/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Assessment Under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Issue Of Share Capital/Other Capital.

144 read with section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by the AO. Learned AO has made certain calculations regarding the increase in the share capital of the assessee and after making such calculations learned AO arrived at a conclusion that a sum of Rs.3,12,98,657/- was unexplained cash credit withing the meaning of section

M/S G.N.CONSTRUCTION vs. I.T.O. WARD AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri R.L. Negi)

section 144 of the Act. 9. Be that as it may, even if the assessment is framed as ex-party the Assessing Officer is bound to take into account all relevant materials and then framed the assessment to the best of his judgment. This means that the Assessing Officer is bound to consider the material available on his record

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

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.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act of 1961 straightway merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the Sundry Creditors was not found genuine. 18 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 13. In view of the above reasons, following Section 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded u/s 144

DINESH KUMAR DIXIT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

68 is bad in law as the section does not cover cash deposits made in bank account, therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 4. That the invocation of Section 115BBE is itself bad in law and also invalid because the same is not applicable for the AY 2017-18, more so when the tax audit report

SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier.” In view of the above fact, the assessee has no right to call in question on the juris, of the AO for issuance of the notice u/s 142(1) for change of incumbency for completion

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

144. (b) That in reaching the aforesaid decision, the learned CIT(A) failed to bring on record any admissible evidence justifying the same and in spite of the facts on record that Literal Rule- Primarily, statute should be interpreted according to the expression used by it in the statute, if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

144. (b) That in reaching the aforesaid decision, the learned CIT(A) failed to bring on record any admissible evidence justifying the same and in spite of the facts on record that Literal Rule- Primarily, statute should be interpreted according to the expression used by it in the statute, if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous

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)

Section 144 of the Act. Ld. AO, thereafter, had made certain observations regarding the bogus transactions carried out by the assessee and have made an addition of Rs. 1,21,66,524/- and Rs. 59,44,691/- with the following observations: 3.3 In absence of any submission, it is inferred that the assessee knows the f and willingly

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)

Section 144 of the Act. Ld. AO, thereafter, had made certain observations regarding the bogus transactions carried out by the assessee and have made an addition of Rs. 1,21,66,524/- and Rs. 59,44,691/- with the following observations: 3.3 In absence of any submission, it is inferred that the assessee knows the f and willingly

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68 of the Act, penalty was not initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the case is related to AY 2017-18, therefore, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC are applicable. Accordingly, the assessment order 7 Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs PCIT, Raipur-1 dated 26.03.2022, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

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

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

144 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal which was subsequently, affirmed by the Tribunal the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for having furnished inaccurate particulars of income and having concealed the particulars of income. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that there is no explanation on record by the assessee

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

68,296 0.36% 13,06,644 1.06% on secured loan 8 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) To salary 14,25,700 1.01% 24,03,790 1.29% 36,38,417 2.95% expenses 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the comparative analysis of the financial statements

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. VIGHNESHWAR ISPAT PVT LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.343/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 149(1)(b)?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,19,11,713 u/s 68 of the Act which was added by the AO?" 3 ITO-3(1), Raipur Vs. Vighneshwar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 5. "Whether on the facts

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act are Initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. (Addition of Rs.4,87,500/-) 8. In the Profit & loss account Freight expenses of Rs.10,99,144/-, Hamali expenses of Rs.2,35,116/- are claimed. On verification and also during the course