← All Phrases

“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.
96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

Jyoti Gupta, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(1) Agra, Agra

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 560/AGR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.560/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2022-23) Ms. Jyoti Gupta Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ 25/52, Chhipitola, Chakkipat, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra. Vs. Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bxxpg-3113-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 21-11-2024 In The Matter Of A Penalty Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 272A(1)(D) For Rs.30000/- Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-06-2024. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Impugned Penalty Stem From The Fact That Ld. Ao Framed An Assessment On Best Judgment Basis Since The Notices Sent On Email Id Was Not Complied With. For The Said Lapse, Ld. Ao Imposed Impugned Penalty Which Got Confirmed In First Appeal. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR
Section 272A(1)(d)

since the notices sent on email Id was not complied with. For the said lapse, Ld. AO imposed impugned penalty which got confirmed in first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee is a housewife

Neetu Sharma Legal Heir of Manish Sharma, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Agra

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 551/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Neetu Sharma Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ (L/H Of Shri Manish Sharma) Ward 2(1)(2), Agra. 49, Pushp Nagar, 100 Foota Vs. Road, Rajpur Chungi, Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cjrps-8546-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] On 14-10-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 24- 03-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.155.14 Lacs For Want Of Any Satisfactory Reply From The Assessee. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay Of 64 Days. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Dismissed Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Stated That Reopening Notice Was Issued In The Name Of Dead

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. DR
Section 144

addition of cash deposit of Rs.155.14 Lacs for want of any satisfactory reply from the assessee. The assessee failed to make any representation during first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 64 days. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed against which the assessee is in further

Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Morena vs. ITO, Morena

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 421/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ C/O Avantika Sales, Havells Ward-1, Morena. Galaxy, Morena Talkies Road, Vs. Morena (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agmpg-3818-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Sh. Nitin & Amit Goyal, Adv. - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 20-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 08-12-2019. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 115 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Case Was Subjected To Scrutiny To Examine The Issue Of Large Value Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Could Not Substantiate The Bank Credits. Ultimately, Ld. Ao Added Cash Deposit Of Rs.317.10 Lacs U/S 69A. On The Other Bank Credits For Rs.315.22 Lacs, Ld. Ao Estimated Business Income Of 6% As Per

For Appellant: S/Sh. Nitin & Amit Goyal, Adv. - Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

other bank credits for Rs.315.22 Lacs, Ld. AO estimated business income of 6% as per Sec.44AD. The assessee remained non-compliant during first appeal also. The Ld. CIT(A) directed Ld. AO to verify whether all the bank accounts belonged to the assessee. The Ld. AO was further directed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra vs. Vinah Bansal, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 387/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.387/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit (Central Circle) Shri Vinay Bansal बनाम/ Agra. G-3, Roshanlal Complex Vs. Kinari Bazar, Agra-282003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aelpb-6036-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [Cit(A)] Dated 05-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 07-09-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Is Addition U/S 68 & Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. 2. During Assessment Proceedings, It Transpired That The Assessee Obtained Unsecured Loans From 15 Persons As Tabulated In Para-5 Of The Assessment Order. After Examining The Documentary Evidences As Furnished By The Assessee, Ld. Ao Accepted The Loans Partially & Made Addition U/S 68 For Rs.104.90 Lacs With Respect To 7 Individual Lenders.

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Jain, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus purchases of Rs.88.52 Lacs with respect to purchases made from M/s Shivam Traders on the ground that these were unexplained purchases. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO merely reiterated the assessment findings only

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kanpur

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 371/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Agra

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 370/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kanpur

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 369/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 368/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kanpur

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 367/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kanpur

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 366/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 365/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

S G Commercial, Jhansi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 364/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

misconceived since the so-calledincriminating material was not found during search at assessee’s premises. The annulment of assessment on that ground in the first appeal was upheld by Hon’ble High Court in that case. Considering these decisions, the assessment for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed

Pushpa Devi Gupta, Kasganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Etah

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 613/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 613/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Smt. Pushpa Devi Gupta Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Mohalla-Sujawalpur, Sahawar Road Ward 3(2), Etah. Vs. Gunjdundwara, Kasganj-207123. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acdpg-5625-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh [Cit(A)] On 24-01-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S144 On 31-03-2014. Having Heard Rival Submissions, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Runs A Petrol Pump In The Name Of M/S Rishav Kisan Sewa Kendra. It Transpired That The Assessee Deposited Cash Of Rs.59.71 Lacs In Its Savings Bank Account. The Ld. Ao Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 For Want Of Any Satisfactory Reply From The Assessee. The Ld. Ao Also Observed That The Said Bank Account Was Not Reflected In The Financial Statements. During First Appeal, The Assessee Furnished Additional

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69

satisfactory reply from the assessee. The Ld. AO also observed that the said bank account was not reflected in the financial statements. During first appeal, the assessee furnished additional evidences which were subjected to remand proceedings. The Ld. AO made enquiries and arrived at the conclusion that the agreements

Hari Mohan, Gujrat vs. DCIT-3, Mathura

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 363/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 362/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 363/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Shri Hari Mohan Dcit-3, बनाम/ 82, Chitrakut Apartments, Mathura. Near Bapu Dargah, Gorwa, Vs. Vadodara, Gujrat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahppm-5638-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal Ita No.363/Agr/2018 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [Cit(A)] On 28-02- 2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 144 On 04-03- 2015. Having Heard Rival Submissions, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor & It Filed Returned Income Of Rs.16.52 Lacs. The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR
Section 144

absence of any satisfactory response from the assessee, Ld.AO estimated income of 12% and made addition of Rs.21.06 Lacs on best judgement basis. During first appeal, the assessee tabulated that its Net profit for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 was 1.03%, 4.74% and 5% and accordingly, assailed

Hari Mohan, Gujrat vs. DCIT-3, Mathura

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 362/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 362/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 363/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Shri Hari Mohan Dcit-3, बनाम/ 82, Chitrakut Apartments, Mathura. Near Bapu Dargah, Gorwa, Vs. Vadodara, Gujrat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahppm-5638-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal Ita No.363/Agr/2018 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [Cit(A)] On 28-02- 2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 144 On 04-03- 2015. Having Heard Rival Submissions, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From Case Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor & It Filed Returned Income Of Rs.16.52 Lacs. The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR
Section 144

absence of any satisfactory response from the assessee, Ld.AO estimated income of 12% and made addition of Rs.21.06 Lacs on best judgement basis. During first appeal, the assessee tabulated that its Net profit for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 was 1.03%, 4.74% and 5% and accordingly, assailed