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 (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 14A(2) shall also apply in relation to case where any assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to the income which does not part form part of the total income under this Act, as held in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, SB-Del) 121 ITD 318 and Pradeep

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

67 days. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel had filed a condonation petition and affidavit on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that after faceless regime happened, the orders/communications are served on the assessee only by way of sending it digitally on the email id of the assessee. There is no physical service of the orders/notices

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "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. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,46,852/- out of total addition made

SMT SMT DHEERAJ DEVI KOTHARI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Dheeraj Devi Kothari, Near Prakash Medicos, Balgovind Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G) Pan : Aezpk9549K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand'N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld.AR before us argued on the additional ground raised by the assessee and submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is not maintainable. In this

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld.AR before us argued on the additional ground raised by the assessee and submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is not maintainable. In this

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

67,70,68,220/- Services equity shares Pvt. Ltd. 20/11/2011 Gupta Allotment of Equity-99404 10/- 790/- 7,95,50,039/- Coalfield & Also, the assessee in order to buttress its claim that the A.O had in the course of the reassessment proceedings verified at length the details of the shareholders a/w. source of the share capital and share premium

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

68, appex court observed as under: 6 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 “……. The expression 'the assessee offers an explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assesses……” 1. iv) Now , let us revert back to the facts of this case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition 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) ..

67 Smt. Sulochana Godhwani 68 to 80 81 to 86 87 & 88 3 2. Lender Capital vis a vis loan Reflected in Reflected in bank lender’s statement balance sheet Arjundas Yes, PN 29 of Yes, PN 32 of PB. PN 29 of PB, Capital Godhwani PB. Rs. 18.48 lakh, loan of Rs. 14.02 lakh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

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. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

67,300/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 13,68,950/- in this ITA No. 71/RPR/2020 (Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 - company only and he has no other asset. 08 Raj Bahadur Tiwari 302000 Cash deposit of Rs. 3,02,000/- on 05.01.2015. The bank account shows no other

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

section 68 was not complied with and he added the entire amount of Rs.58,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) as per details reasons and observations as appearing in his order was of the opinion that it is always the onus of the assessee to establish the identity , creditworthiness of the creditors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

67,750/- Unexplained cash credit : 20,00,000/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) : 2,92,028/- Unrecorded contract receipts : 72,435/- Unexplained sundry creditors : 5,49,649/- Interest on late payment of TDS : 48,661/- Disallowance out of Mfg. Exp : 66,42,939/- 3 & CO No.13/RPR/2017 4. Against the said order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before

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

67 TTJ 247 (AIL). 1.39 In Elite Developers v. DCIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Nag.) 616 it was 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