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)

section 68 - It was noted that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry in respect of share applicant companies - Assessing Officer had merely made addition by discarding/disbelieving documentary evidences filed by assessee - Moreover, Assessing Officer had not demonstrated that share applicant companies fulfilled requirement of shell company - Whether impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be set aside

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 68. 5.2 Identity of the Investor The identity of M/s Aravali Highrise Pvt. Ltd. stands clearly established since the entity is a duly incorporated company under the Companies Act, holds a valid PAN, files regular income-tax returns, and has furnished copies of its Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association, audited financial statements and bank statements

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). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

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). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 68. Since the assessee had provide the primary documents and 12 explanation to the AO, if there was any doubt or further explanation was required the AO should have made further enquiry, just because the AO have an report from the investigation wing which also have no substantial mention about the investor M/s Lovely Suppliers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S VANDANA VIDYUT LIMITED,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Vandana Vidyut Limited Vandana Building, M.G Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaacv7850L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 as per which the share subscriber in the assessee company should explain the source of funds out of which payment has been made to the assessee. ---Assessee has furnished documents and balance sheet and bank accounts of the three investor companies explaining the source. Fund flow of the three companies having common director was also provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S TRIPCO SERVICES PVT. LTD., , RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

216 CTR 195] holding that the department is free to proceed to reopen the case of the bogus shareholder which is not relevant after 01.04.2013 as the section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee. 25 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur 7. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside, answering the question of law, framed and quoted above, in favour of the Assessee

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

section 68 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of id. CIT(A)." 5. CIT V/s P. Mohankala, (2007) 291ITR 278 SC "The expression "the assessee offers no explanation" means the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presumptive additions made, unsubstantiated on the strength of corroborative evidence

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.

section 68 of the Act 5 to establish the Identity, substantiate creditworthiness of investors and to prove the geniuses of the transaction, it was thus prayed to sustain the addition made by Ld AO by setting aside the order of Ld CIT(A) wherein the issues on merits were not dealt with

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

68 of the Act stood discharged by the assessee. For the forgoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside answering the question of law, farmed and quoted above, in favour of the assessee. We do so." If no proper opportunity is given to the assessee to controvert the documents/information

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

Section 68 of the Act, i.e., prior to insertion of the “1st Proviso” vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12 remained under no statutory obligation to put forth an explanation as regards the source of source of the share application money received by it during the said year