SEEMA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), LUCKNOW
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 255/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Seema, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 Pan:Ftyps6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 14.09.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3), On 11.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals) Nfac Was Passed Without Providing Proper Opportunity To The Appellant, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Void Ab- Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld Assessing Officer U/S 40(A)(3) Of The Act Amounting To Rs 3,01,36,682/- Without Appreciating The Material On Record & The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) Without Giving Due Weightage To The Totality Of The Circumstances & Considerations Of Business Expediency Existing In The Present Case As Contemplated In Section 40A(3) Of The Act.
For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)
…v. Collector, Land Acqusition vs. MST. Katji & Ors. vi. CIT vs. S. Duraipandi & Ors vi. Kaikara Construction Co. vs. Jt. CIT, Kollam vii. Vedabai Aoias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil viii. B. Badhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693. 3. We have duly considered the issue. In view of the circumstances enumerated by the assessee in her petition, in the interest of justice, we admit the case of the assessee to be taken up on its merits. 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Seema 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from business and profession as also income from other sour…
