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

credits as unexplained in the hands of the assessee and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(C). In this case assessee has made a claim which is wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished to explain the cash

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

unexplained cash deposits and credit entries in assessee’s bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who, vide, ex parte order dated 24.02.2025, dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to many others, that learned CIT(Appeals

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

unexplained cash deposits and credit entries in assessee’s bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who, vide, ex parte order dated 24.02.2025, dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to many others, that learned CIT(Appeals

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

unexplained cash deposits and credit entries in assessee’s bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who, vide, ex parte order dated 24.02.2025, dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to many others, that learned CIT(Appeals

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

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

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining\napproval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his\nreturn

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)

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his return

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)

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his return

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)

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his return

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

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

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining\napproval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his\nreturn

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

271(1)(c) causing prejudice and taking away the right of the assessee to raise the issue in first appeal as and when penalty is levied. Because, while making the assessment the ‘AO’ and while sustaining 3. addition Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 4. Because the appellant denies liability of interest

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

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

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining\napproval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his\nreturn

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

unexplained cash credits. 3. Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income, without giving cognizance to the fact that the said amount qualifies as an exempt income u/s 10(1) of the Act, and was duly reported

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

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

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

cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s 148 of the act and issued notice on 30.03.2021 after obtaining\napproval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed his\nreturn

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

penalty of concealment, proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1 )(C) is initiated.” 3. In the impugned order, however, the ld. CIT(A) has found as follows: “3. 5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that although assesses has claimed that the cash deposits in the bank

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

penalty u/s 271(1) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case. 8. That the appeal as well as assessment order are against the law and facts of the case. 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the Grounds of Appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 04.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-3(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

unexplained cash deposit in assessee’s bank account, addition of Rs.3,04,874/- made as undisclosed salary credited to the same bank account, addition of Rs.15,880/- as undisclosed interest income by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed consequential penalty of Rs.2