SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of penalty proceedings, as contained in or evincible from the assessment order amounting to sufficient notice to the assessee, as maintained by the Department. It is also up for adjudication as to whether, in case issuance of notice u/s 274 is to be taken as a mandatory statutory requirement

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order dated 24.11.2017 passed\nunder Sections 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for\nshort\").\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership\nfirm, engaged in the business of civil contract work in various\ndepartments. The assessee has e-filled his return of income on 14-10-\n2010 declaring

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

28,43,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant having furnished all the material facts, legally required, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly erroneous and illegal in the eyes of law. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

28-02-2018, for the AY.2016-17, on the following Grounds: “1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (A) dismissing the appeal is bad in law. Intimation u/s 143(1) is an appealable order u/s 246A and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issue on merits

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2025 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 5-12-2018 by the Learned AO determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 11,65,500/-. The Assessee challenged the same before the Learned JCIT(A). The Learned JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the ground that Assessee had availed Vivad Se Vishwas Neeraj Kumar

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the appellate order dated 30th October, 2017 is arbitrary, capricious and 9. against natural justice and thus deserves to be quashed/annulled. The appellant seeks permission to modify and/or prefer any other ground of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify

BHAGIRATH PAKHRIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue