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)

Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal4. 68

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)

Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal4. 68

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore

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)

149 taxmann.com 399, the application of provisions of section 147 would only be resorted to, if the provisions of section 153C or Musaddilal Mansaram Infrasture Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur vs Musaddilal Mansaram Infrasture Pvt. Ltd. 153A cannot be invoked on the cases originating from the Search & Seizure Action

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)

149 taxmann.com 399, the application of provisions of section 147 would only be resorted to, if the provisions of section 153C or Musaddilal Mansaram Infrasture Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur vs Musaddilal Mansaram Infrasture Pvt. Ltd. 153A cannot be invoked on the cases originating from the Search & Seizure Action

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

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

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

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

68 on account of share capital received by the appellant, disregarding and ignoring legal and cogent evidences available on record. The addition made by AO is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,76,76,469/- on account of various expenses/purchases observing that the same were paid in cash and remained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal4. 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 149(1) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal4. 68

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.

149 (1) (b) of the Act after expiry of four years but before expiry of six years. In such a case, the first condition for invoking section 147 of the Act is that the ld AO must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The second condition is that

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

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD,, RAIPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

149. Initiation of proceedings under the proviso being clearly barred by time, the AO could not have assumed jurisdiction by issuing notice under Section 148 in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83." 9. We find that during the course of the assessment proceeding u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed complete details of share application

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)

68,114/- by making a disallowance on account of Health & Education Cess paid for Rs. 47,34,164/- and claimed as expenditure under any other item allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP in ITR. Subsequently, the case record of the assessee are examined by the Ld. PCIT and have observed that during the relevant period the assessee company made purchases

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

68,160/- on 31.03.2015. But on perusal of the bank statement kept on record i.e. SBI and Jila Sahkari Bank Ltd. no such transaction are being reflected in these accounts. On perusal of balance sheet, it is found that the assessee has maintained four accounts during the year. But the statement of bank account maintained at SBI (KCC) and Vijaya

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

149(1)(b) of the Act, the issuance of notice beyond the period of three years was subject to a jurisdictional requirement that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax, represented in the form of an asset; an expenditure; or an entry or entries in the books of account amounting to Rs.50 lacs or more had escaped assessment

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

149(1)(b) of the Act, the issuance of notice beyond the period of three years was subject to a jurisdictional requirement that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax, represented in the form of an asset; an expenditure; or an entry or entries in the books of account amounting to Rs.50 lacs or more had escaped assessment