AVINASH INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Avinash Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company) Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Aabcj32884H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment

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

section 263 of the Act being highly unjustified and not in accordance with the provisions of law, may please be cancelled. GROUND NO. IV 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Although the registry has pointed

GOPAL SPONGE & POWER PVT. LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

1) of section 139. Therefore, deduction claimed by assessee amounting to Rs.8,68,43,623/- is irregular & should be added back to total income of assessee. Considering the facts narrated in the foregoing paras which have emanated from the case record, it is seen and observed that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

SURENDRA KUMAR DAGA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

1) of the Act dated 17.02.2016 (page 21 of Paper Book) as per which the A.O. clearly noted that the request of the assessee for transfer of case to Raipur was already pending with CIT-12, Kolkata but the jurisdiction was not shifted and transferred by the CIT-12, Kolkata. The learned counsel next submitted that as per the Income

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, 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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

SMT. PUSHPA 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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, 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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

SMT. TILOTTAMA 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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

SANKET 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

section 54B of the Act thereby tacitly accepting the claim of deduction put forward by the co-owners hence, it is most earnestly requested that the same treatment is deservedly required to be extended to the assessee individual and the returned income may please be assessed & accepted as such.” 54. We find that the A.O after considering the aforesaid

M.J. STEELS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016

1,08,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 11 AY – 2015-2016 4.2 Concurring with the findings of the assessing officer, Ld PCIT invoked the revisionary powers vested in him by virtue of section 263

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

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

1. That the order passed u/s. 263 by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263 and setting aside the assessment order of the A.O. 3. That the case was selected on limited issues, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner erred

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

263 of the Income tax Act. The A.O. is directed to make adequate enquiries. 1. Identity, Genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s Gangotri Tracon P. Ltd in respect of receipt of sum of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- in the light of provisions of section 68

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

263 of the Income-tax Act. The AO is directed to make adequate enquiries. 1. Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s. Gangotri Tracon P. Ltd in respect of receipt of sum of Rs.18,12,00,000/- in the light of provisions of section 68

M/S. PRACHI AGRICULTURE & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 30/Rpr/2021 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 M/S Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited 18-19, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (Cg) 492 001 Pan : Aabcp 3701 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 26/03/2021, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2016-2017, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253(1) Of The Act.

1. That the ex-parte revision order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur (“the Ld. PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard since the mandatory show cause notice was not served on the appellant against

TOUCHSTONE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

1) The order passed u/s 263 is contrary to law, illegal, unsustainable and is passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax erred in making revision, by invoking provisions of section 263, in original assessment order passed