M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,88,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant considerations

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)

250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,07,00,000/- made by the AO in the absence of satisfaction of parameters prescribed u/s 68 of the Act?" 4. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by giving a finding which is contrary

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,20,71,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant considerations

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 of the 2 M/s. Trimurti Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,37,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section

SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 310/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Section 68 of the Act. Before, Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) also there were no additional submissions or corroborative evidence furnished by the assessee, which is rightly noted by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) based on assessee’s own submission that the details furnished by assessee before the First Appellate Authority are the same as were furnished before the Ld. AO during

MESERS GOYAL INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21,250

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21,250

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21,250

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21,250

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21,250

KIRAN AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

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: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

250 of the Act may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. 2. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi ("the Ld. AO") under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is highly illegal, bad in law, suffers from legal infirmities, vitiated, unsustainable and hence liable to be quashed

AFTAB SIDDIQUE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 633/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aftab Siddique, Near Sunni Maszid, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Nayapara, Tatyapara, Raipur, Tax, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Pan: Ajgps3624K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 09/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution as under: - 3 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur 4 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur 4. Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel

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

68 of the Act?" 7. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having plenary powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in the giving a finding that no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the assessee despite the information of the Investigation Wing

RAJU JHANGHEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), respectively. 3. In ITA No. 445/RPR/2025, the appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Gr.No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s 148A(d) dt. 22-07-2022 and reopening u/s 148 dt. 25-7-22 for AY 14-15 under

RAJU JHANGHEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), respectively. 3. In ITA No. 445/RPR/2025, the appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Gr.No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s 148A(d) dt. 22-07-2022 and reopening u/s 148 dt. 25-7-22 for AY 14-15 under

V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

section 68 of the Act, which resulted assessed loss at Rs.(-) 43,05,51,858/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as under: “5. The final hearing in this case was fixed on 15.04.2024. However, neither the appellant submitted any written submissions nor was any request for adjournment sought

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

250(4) & (6) of the Act and had summarily dismissed the appeal of the assesse. Further, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has not verified regarding the claim of the assessee as regards the nature and source of such cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has not given any finding as to the capital account that has been submitted

TRILOK CHAND JAISWAL,SAKTI vs. ITO WARD 2(1) BILASPUR, VYAPAR VIHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Trilok Chand Jaiswal Main Road, Near Santoshi Mandir, Sakti Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh-495 689 Pan: Aewpj9961R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of parties herein, documents on record and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observed upholding the order of assessment that initial onus is on the assessee to explain simultaneously the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of Section 68