SUNEEL KUMAR AGRAWAL,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(5), LAKHIMPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed
ITA 112/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2017-18 Suneel Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Old Galla Mandi, Lakhimpur - Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri-262701 Pan Agfpa 3061J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Called The ‘Cit(A)’], Lucknow-3 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case, As Appearing From The Assessment Order, Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Edible Oil, Food Grains, Khandsari, Sugar, Atta, Maida & Suji Etc. A Warrant U/S. 132A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) Was Served On The Assessee On 02.02.2017 & A Sum Of Rs.14,64,000/- Was Seized From The Possession Of The Assessee.
Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 69A
…d is conclusive, there can exist no dispute, nor shall there be any doubt. In such a situation, the assessee cannot be condemned on preponderance of probability. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Krishna Nand Agnihotri vs. State of Madhya Pradesh’ (1997) 1 SCC 816 held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion because the Court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. Therefore, in view of the above, I am unable to concur with the orders of the lower authorities and 11 I set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the…