Navudai Shikshan and Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 96/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.
For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263
…ances to UPTU and Samaj Kalyan. Therefore, after considering various case laws including CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC). Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT-3, Kolkata (2017) 245 taxman 127 (SC). PCIT, Ludhiana vs. Venus Woollen Mills (2019) 412 ITR 188 (P&H) and CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries (2017) 85 taxman.com 10 (Bombay), the ld. CIT(A) held that there was clear non- application of mind on the part of the ld. AO inasmuch as necessary enquiries should have been made, which were not made. This made the order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue within the meaning of section 263 read with clause…
