HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

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

6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is bad in law and 1 void ab initio, having been

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

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

6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is bad in law and 1 void ab initio, having been

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. Merely stating the assessment order passed by AO is upheld, and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents is not sufficient. The ld. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO., which even includes power of enhancement

CHAND KHAN,SADA SHIV NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) , CITY CENTER

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. I observe that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits.The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

250 of the Income Tax Act, the appellate order is liable to be\nset aside.\n2 That while passing of the order, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not\ndisposed of the grounds are being taken by the appellant in the appeal.\nThe order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law, liable to\nbe set aside.\n3 That

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

250 is bad in law, liable to be set aside.” 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of selling potatoes to persons outside Agra for which the buyers were sending the sales consideration by depositing the money in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee

RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

section 250(6) of the Act hence the order is bad in law and llable to be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment

JAY SINGH,MORENA vs. ITO-1, MORENA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

250 dt. 26.12.24, the NFAC has completely ignored the facts that the provisions of section 148 are not attracted in the case of the assessee. The assessment passed by the AO, invoking the provisions of section 148 is against the law, order passed by NFAC dt. 26.12.2024 is bad in law, liable to be set aside. Ground No. 6 (Additional

SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LALITPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. Brief facts state that the appellant-assessee, an individual, engaged in wholesale trading of food grains, pulses, and oilseeds under the name, M/s. Shri Vidhya Sagar Traders

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the\nAct\").\n2.\nGrounds raised by the assessee are as under :\n\"1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily confirmed all the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer without considering the\nAudited Balance Sheet, purchase deed of properties, proof of life\ninsurance premium and tution

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment is further vitiated as the mandatory previous sanction under section 151 was not supplied to the appellant despite request, and in any case appears to have been obtained mechanically without due application of mind; absence of a valid sanction renders the notice and consequent assessment void. 5. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case there

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Saurabh Jain vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in setting aside assessment without dealt to filed ground of appeal hence whole order

SINGH CARRIERS,JHANSI vs. WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20. Singh Carriers vs. ITO 2. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act as the assessee failed

SONU JAIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AND FATHER OF LATE SONU JAIN SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN ,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 09.03.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has information that assessee has made large cash deposit into the bank accounts amounting to ₹64,90,000 and no return of income

SHREE RAMRAJA HOMES PVT.LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. ITO, NFAC, Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'AO'] in complete denial to the written submissions made and material placed by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A), (b). That the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

reassessment order passed on 21/12/2018. There after assessee did not receiving any notice of hearing only when portal was logged for preparing application under vivad se viswas scheme 2024 it was noticed that order was passed on 22/02/2023 as the assessee was not aware about the disposal of appeal, the appeal is delay of 21 months looking to the facts

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

250 is illegal as the appeal was wrongly closed on the mistaken assumption that the appellant had opted for settlement under the VSVS Scheme, whereas no such application was ever filed for the assessment order; the only VSVS application pertained to penalty under section 271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025

VISHNU SONI,SHIVPURI vs. ITO, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 17.09.2021 for Asst. Year 2014-15. Vishnu Soni vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under appeal