IRFAN AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO RANGE 1(2),, ALLAHABAD

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

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That in any view of the matter assessment made u/s 143 (3)/147 by order dated 25.03.2015 on income of Rs.19,16,470/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter proceeding

MAA SHARDA COLD STORAGE,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.04/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay of 32 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: 1. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE

HUSHN JAHAN,AMETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AMETHI, AMETHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.68/ALLD/2025 Page 8 of 9 7.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted before me that the NFAC has passed an order ex-parte qua the assessee, arbitrarily upholding the addition of Rs.16,50,000/- in respect of cash deposits

ITAILI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,FATEHPUR vs. ITO-2(4), FATEHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the matter. We observe that while there is a considerable delay in the filing of the appeal, there is no apparent benefit to the assessee in not filing the appeal and no apparent judicial pronouncement subsequently pronounced on the grounds under dispute, that would allow us to infer that the assessee filed the appeal

RAHUL SHARMA,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.98/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the notices

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

condone the delay and admit the case for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had deposited cash

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the Department received an information that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited a cash

SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment order dated 29/12/2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.27,18,685/- as against returned income of Rs.1

JAI MAA DURGA TRADERS,BALLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Jai Maa Durga Traders, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ballia (Appeals), Income Tax Department Pan:Aagfj8468H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.05.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Detailed & Run Into 16 Pages. Accordingly, For Reasons Of Brevity, The Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Being Reproduced In The Order But The Essence Of The Grounds Are That The Unilateral Order In Question Was Excessive, Illegal & Without Justice & That The Complete Details Of Inward Supplies & Outward Supplies Received By The Assessee In The Relevant Year Had Been Submitted, The Accounts Had Been Audited & Audit Report Uploaded On The Portal. The Firm Had Erroneously Been Allotted A Second Pan In The F.Y. 2011-12 On Application For Duplicate Pan & This Second Pan Had Been Furnished To The Bank While The Itr & Tax Audit Report Had Been Submitted On The Existing Pan. As A Result Of This, An Impression Had Been Created That There Were Unexplained Deposits In The Bank Account But The Fact Is That All The Deposits Were 1 Jai Maa Durga Traders A.Y. 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in wholesale trading of sugar, it purchases sugar bags in the bulk quantity from sugar mills and sells to it to retailers in the city of Ballia. It filed

RAM KUMAR MAURYA,BHADOHI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BHADOHI, BHADOHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

cash deposits of Rs.12,84,330/- as well as credit entry of Rs.1,78,444/-, totaling to Rs.14,62,774/- in the aforementioned bank account during the year under consideration, the AO treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and added the same to the assessee’s total income under section 69 of the Act. The AO completed

RAJESH KUMAR,MIRZAPUR vs. NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Tarkapur, Mirzapur-231001 Pan:Aoopk0542B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 Passed On 7.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of Rs.1,53,13,406/ U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Is Highly Unjustified. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding U/S 147 Was Initiated Is Not Correct As There Was No Proper Satisfaction Nor Information With The Assessing Officer That Assessee Has Escaped Assessment Hence The Entire Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Addition Of Rs. 1,53, 13,406/- (1,36,16,605/- + 16,96,801/-) As Added Us/ 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act By Alleging Unexplained Money By The Assessing As Per Para 8 Of The Assessment Order Is Highly Unjustified. 4. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessing Officer Was Wrong In Adding Only Credit Entries In Bank Account Without Considering The Debit Entries When The Law Is Settled That Document Should Be Considered As Whole & Not A Piece- Meal Hence The Addition Made Is Highly Unjustified.

condonation petition that the reason for the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee was seriously ill for a long time with acute breathlessness and other problems and was undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital, Delhi due to which he could not contact his counsel. It was only after he recovered, that he got the appeal prepared

RAMENDRA SINGH,KANNAUJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3), KANNAUJ

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

Deposit and credit treated as un-explained money in bank account, IT act u/s 69A, But the amount of Rs.15,29,500/" was the receipt from Sales of Agricultural Land, and NEFT/TRF Credit highway land acquisition amount of compensation self-joint bank a/c of Rs.22,20,000/-, & interest credited in saving a/c Rs.92,199/- which Amount of Net income

JAIN SHIKSHA VIKASH SAMITI ,SULTANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash deposits of Rs.17,79,226/- in savings bank account. In order to verify the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee to furnish reply with I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 supporting evidences, if any. Since the assessee failed to furnish reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order u/s 144/147

CHHEDI LAL GUPTA,PRATAPGARH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATAPGARH

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

cash of Rs.10,63,000/- deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period is liable to be assessed as part of turnover of the brick line business of the appellant and therefore separate addition under section 69A of Rs.10,63,000/- is liable to be deleted.” 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed

ISRAIL,CHITRAKOOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANDA

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information gathered during the phase of online verification, the Department gathered

NARENDRA SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT (A), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2009-10 Narendra Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Kalyanpur, Allahabad, U.P. Ward-1(3), Allahabad Pan:Buvps2136P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R

cash deposit in the saving bank account of the assessee of Rs. 10,85,000/- during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The AO issued the query letter dated 17.11.2015 seeking explanation from the assessee about the source of this deposit but there was no response to the said letter. The AO thereafter issued notice under

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash reflected in bank account. Considering the above and also after a lapse of 14 years, providing complete details is not possible. That AO has added total deposit in bank Rs. 1,14,10,110/- without considering the expenses. How can total deposit will be appellant's income. The appellant spent on diesel, driver's salary, repairs and maintenance

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash reflected in bank account. Considering the above and also after a lapse of 14 years, providing complete details is not possible. That AO has added total deposit in bank Rs. 1,14,10,110/- without considering the expenses. How can total deposit will be appellant's income. The appellant spent on diesel, driver's salary, repairs and maintenance

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash reflected in bank account. Considering the above and also after a lapse of 14 years, providing complete details is not possible. That AO has added total deposit in bank Rs. 1,14,10,110/- without considering the expenses. How can total deposit will be appellant's income. The appellant spent on diesel, driver's salary, repairs and maintenance