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

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 by the assessee

SHRI SHRI NITESHKUMAR GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

68 of Act. The impugned amount were unsecured loans taken from M/s. Seema R Mutreja for an amount, of Rs. 2,50,000/- and from Anil Dengwani for Rs.18,20,000/- aggregating Rs. 20,70,000/-. During the assessment proceedings the AO called for various documents in order to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders

SHRI SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

245 ITR 160 (MP) iii) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj,) 4 Claris Life sciences Ltd. Vs ACIT (2008) 298 ITR (AT) 403 (Ahd.) iv) 7. With regarding to assessee’s argument that in the present case no money was received by the assessee, only acceptance of credit entry through journal entry, thus provision

M/S ANJANI ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

68, on account of unsecured loan received by the assessee. The addition made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.37,23,402/- out of the disallowance of Rs.37,94,738/- made by the AO out of the interest account. The disallowance made

MESERS FASHION HOUSE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fashion House, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 001 Pan : Aacff3323M .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel

245 ITR 145 (MP) 11 A.Y.2013-14 8. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions and analyzed the facts and circumstances of this case. We have also given thoughtful consideration to the judicial pronouncements placed before us. The basic addition is with regard to section 68

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) ..

245 ITR 160 (MP). 8. No lender stated that cash was given by assessee. Nothing on record to show that assessee’s own money brought back. 9. A person could still be held to be owner of sum of money even though explanation furnished by him regarding source of that money was found to be not correct - observed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (AppeaIs)-2, Raipur has erred in setting aside the same to the Learned AO instead of deleting the impugned addition which is contrary to the decision of the then jurisdictional High Court in CIT v, Metachem Industries [2002] 245

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (AppeaIs)-2, Raipur has erred in setting aside the same to the Learned AO instead of deleting the impugned addition which is contrary to the decision of the then jurisdictional High Court in CIT v, Metachem Industries [2002] 245

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -I, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

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

68 TTJ (Nag.) 616, has held that in scrutiny assessment completed in consequence of search, no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income on estimations, presumptions, imaginations and guess work and income estimated on the basis of probabilities, possibilities, guess work, surmises and conjectures, cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) observed that the entries noted

M/S RADHIKA WATER & AMUSEMENT PARK INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

68, on account of capital introduced by the partner H.K, Sachdeo (HUF). The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and not justified. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,25,350/- made by the A.O on account of salary expenses

M/S SCC INVESTMENT ,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245

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

section 2(12A) of the Act, justify assessment of the same u/s 68 of the Act. [Relied on Haji 15 M/s. Rukmani Engineering Works Vs. DCIT, Central-Korba Nazir Hussain Vs. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 42 (Del.) TM]. In the case of Taj Borewells no books of accounts were maintained and it was the first year of assessment different