DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

section 43(5)(e). Our observations are duly supported with the various decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, referred to supra. Respectfully following the S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) holding the transaction as business transaction is on right appreciation of facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

256 ITR 360 wherein it has been held that no additions u/s 68 can be made if the primary owns is discharged by the assessee by providing confirmations, ITRs and bank statement of the loan creditors. Ld AR also relied upon the case of Pawan Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Bilaspur (Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chhattisgarh

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)

68 of the Act on April 1, 2013, i.e., effective from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards. Further, it is also submitted here that no adverse inference has been drawn in the assessment order on the source of funds and therefore it can’t be raised in any subsequent stage of proceeding. 6. Distinction of present case with the case

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

256 ITR 331 Raj 2002 it was held that sec 68 of the Act empowers the AO to make inquiries if he is not satisfied with entries of cash credits. The AO's satisfaction to invoke sec 68 must be derived from relevant factors on the basis of proper inquiry and collection of facts. If no proper inquiry is made

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) ..

256 ITR 360 (Guj.) Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash Credits - Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,85,000 as unexplained cash credits in respect of loans taken by assessee from 21 parties - Assessee had discharged initial onus by providing identity of all creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR numbers/permanent account numbers and copies

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 SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked merely for the reason that the lenders had not complied with the notices issued u/s.131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act. In support of his contention the Ld. AR had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked merely for the reason that the lenders had not complied with the notices issued u/s.131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act. In support of his contention the Ld. AR had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

256 to 259 Mahalaxmi 2006-07, 17.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Technocast 2009-10 143(3) of the a/w. CO Ltd. to 2011- Income Tax Nos. 42 to 12 Act, 1961 (in 45/RPR/2015 short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar and arising from a common order of CIT(A), all the captioned Revenue’s appeals

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

256 to 259 Mahalaxmi 2006-07, 17.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Technocast 2009-10 143(3) of the a/w. CO Ltd. to 2011- Income Tax Nos. 42 to 12 Act, 1961 (in 45/RPR/2015 short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar and arising from a common order of CIT(A), all the captioned Revenue’s appeals

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

256 to 259 Mahalaxmi 2006-07, 17.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Technocast 2009-10 143(3) of the a/w. CO Ltd. to 2011- Income Tax Nos. 42 to 12 Act, 1961 (in 45/RPR/2015 short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar and arising from a common order of CIT(A), all the captioned Revenue’s appeals

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

256 to 259 Mahalaxmi 2006-07, 17.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Technocast 2009-10 143(3) of the a/w. CO Ltd. to 2011- Income Tax Nos. 42 to 12 Act, 1961 (in 45/RPR/2015 short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar and arising from a common order of CIT(A), all the captioned Revenue’s appeals