AMIT GANDHI,GWALIOR vs. BPL-W-(41)-(91), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhamit Gandhi, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit, Parking No. 4, Main Delhi Road Transport Nagar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afdpg7862E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta, Ca Shri Anant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2026

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.04.2024 by the Assessing Officer, Agra (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 addition of Rs 6,50,000 made under Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Anju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-26, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awtpa4297L Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 56,35,106/- after making an addition of Rs. 49,98,136/-, which stood upheld by the Learned NFAC. Anju Agarwal 4. At the outset, we find that the identical issue had been adjudicated by this Tribunal in Assessee

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio. 7. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit in bank under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even cash deposit amount

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does not contain any ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025 Manoj Kumar

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does not contain any ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025 Manoj Kumar

ITO, ALIGARH vs. RASHID LALOO, ALIGARH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

68,85,320/- on adhoc basis. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) against the said assessment order dated 17.03.2022. Learned CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions and documentary evidences, allowed assessee’s first appeal, holding that on animal sales turnover of Rs.33,02,83,735/-, net profit rate of 0.22% shall

LAXMI TRADERS,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2022 passed by Assessment Unit, Delhi. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee had filed an adjournment petition, which was rejected and the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of materials available on record

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

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

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n2. Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee in the Memo of appeal\nfiled with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, as well as\nadditional groundsof appeal filed by the assessee with Tribunal in ITA\nNo. 278/Agr/2024,reads as under :\n“1 That the appellate order passed dated

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

68,988. c) A R Traders – PAN – AAXFA5707F As per the copy of account submitted by the Assessee, the total sales made to this party was Rs. 33,69,531 and the closing balance was Rs. 1,12,445. In response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, the party submitted the copy

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,ETAH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act and taxed the same as per provisions of section 158BBE of the Act vide assessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B

DHARMENDRA SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Dharmendra Sharma, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing In Front Of Narcotics Officer, Office, Ramkala Nagar, Ward-2(1), Morar, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J Jurisdictional Assessing Vs. Dharmendra Sharma, Officer, In Front Of Narcotics Office, Ward-2(1), Gwalior Ramkala Nagar, Morar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.02.2024 by the Assessing Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). As these are cross Dharmendra Sharma appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR vs. DHARMENDRA SHARMA, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Dharmendra Sharma, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing In Front Of Narcotics Officer, Office, Ramkala Nagar, Ward-2(1), Morar, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J Jurisdictional Assessing Vs. Dharmendra Sharma, Officer, In Front Of Narcotics Office, Ward-2(1), Gwalior Ramkala Nagar, Morar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.02.2024 by the Assessing Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). As these are cross Dharmendra Sharma appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

68 of the Act as an unexplained cash credit vide assessment order dated 30.03.2022. 2. At the very outset, we notice that despite, appellant assessee having raised several grounds of appeal before the tribunal, an additional legal ground has also been raised through an application dated 14.01.2026, which reads as under: “That the assessment competed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B

RAJAT GOEL (HUF),MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 21.09.2022 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That the Ld. NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred on facts and in law while passing the appellate order u/s 250 holding "the appeal is not entertained and is dismissed

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 PAN-ANAPA8542J Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Sushil Maheshwari, CA Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

section 41(1) and consequential addition is highly arbitrary and not sustainable on facts and under the law. 3. That in any case, the outstanding balance of sundry creditors being of consequential nature and arising from trading transactions, the correctness and genuineness of which is not dispute, the entire basis of addition is patently misconceived and devoid of merits