ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

delay of 14 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. 3.1 The assessee has also preferred an additional ground as under:- A.Y. 2014-15 M/s N. Chaurasia Associates “5. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the revised return is a valid return within the provisions of section

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

delay of 14 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. 3.1 The assessee has also preferred an additional ground as under:- A.Y. 2014-15 M/s N. Chaurasia Associates “5. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the revised return is a valid return within the provisions of section

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.’ In view of the fact that the only issue for consideration by the Hon’ble High Court was the sustainability or otherwise of an addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, its ratio decidendi is that `in cases where the assessment … have already been completed…, which

MEENU, GOVINDPUR, ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC (NFAC, DELHI), DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, 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 09.02.2023, 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 Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), dated 26.03.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,12,650/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 8 deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,698/- and sustaining

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. We first of all advert to the assessee’s and Revenue’s quantum cross appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 1071 & 1151/Del/2014 for former assessment year 2005- 06 and ITA No. 2455 & 3329/Del/2014 for latter assessee year

UMRAO SINGH SMARAK SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(1)(a)(i) & (ii) dated 16.08.2019 & 28.02.2019 the exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) is not allowable for the following reasons: “As per Section-12A(1)(b) of Income tax Act read with 1st Proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, where the total income of the trust or institution without giving effect to the provisions

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") by learned Assessing ITA No.54 and 55/ALLD/2020 Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO”) . We have heard both the parties through video conferencing mode through virtual court. 2. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in its appeal

KANODIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Kanodia Investments Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 1, Lukerganj, Allahabad, U.P. V. Centralized Processing Centre Bengaluru Pan: Aabck0604Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249(2)(b) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not show sufficient cause before ld. CIT(A) for filing its appeal late beyond the time provided under the 1961 Act , and thus, the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay. Thus, prayers were made by ld. Sr. DR to dismiss this

RAVINDRA NATH PATEL ,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GORKHPUR, GORKHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale grain dealer and rice manufacturer and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs.15,39,490/- as against

RAKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,ALLAHABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for short, dated 22/03/2022 was passed by CPC, Bangaluru raising a demand of Rs.3,14,270/- vide demand reference No.2021202137053054511T. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 03/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the addition to the income to the tune of Rs. 6,31,788/- made by AO on account of delayed remission of employee's contribution towards EPF to the credit of employee with relevant fund beyond the time prescribed under relevant

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

143(3) of the Act 61, dated 27/12/2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the filing of this appeal is belated by 32 days. An affidavit has been filed explaining the delay in filing of this appeal where the I.T.A. No.04/Alld/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee submitted that the order of the first

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That in view of the matter assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18/12/18 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on income Rs. 15,98,850/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That

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

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

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5. Thus, the period of limitation from

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.

143(2) of the Act. 4. THAT the learned A.O. has erred in law & a fact in making addition of Rs. 25, 90,414/- without considering this fact that appellant has filed his return of income with no account case status and Section 69A can only be invoked where books of accounts were maintained. 5. THAT the appellant craves

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

143(2) having been issued by the Id. Assessing Officer before completing the assessment proceedings vide order dated 24.12.2019, entire proceedings against the appellant is vitiated being void-ab- initio and the addition made by him in the said assessment ITA No.140/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 7 order which stood affirmed by the ex-parte impugned appellate authority order dated