SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 463/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: ITA No. 463/Agr/2025: 3. Brief facts state that appellant assessee filed his return

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)(c) and/or no penal action of whatsoever nature be kindly initiated/taken against the assessee I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 15 and accordingly, while completing the assessment the net profit rate of 8% was applied by the learned AO. He further argued that the facts of the assessee’s case relevant to A.Y.2009- 6.2. 10 were peculiar, which

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)(c) and/or no penal action of whatsoever nature be kindly initiated/taken against the assessee I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 15 and accordingly, while completing the assessment the net profit rate of 8% was applied by the learned AO. He further argued that the facts of the assessee’s case relevant to A.Y.2009- 6.2. 10 were peculiar, which

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

purchasers and date / mode / source of receipts.In appellate proceedings assessee was again asked that the partner should be produced with all these documentary proofs for receipt of cash against advance for sale of land as before the ITAT, the counsel of the assessee has accepted that these are unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri Tej Singh had expired