ABDULLAH KHAN,BHADOHI vs. CIT (A), VARANASI

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoita Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 Ays: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Abdullah Khan, Takiya Kallan Shah, Main Road, Tax (Appeals), Varanasi District-Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), U.P. Pan-Akypk9399L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arif Iqbal, Advocate Department By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Both Dated 04.06.2019 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12, Respectively. 2. The Impugned Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Passed On 04.06.2019, Whereas These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee On 01.07.2022, Therefore, The Delay Of More Than Two Years Is Required To Be Explained. The Assessee Has Filed The Applications For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Receive The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Till 20.03.2020 When The Assessee Obtained The Certified Copies Of The Above Orders. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Further Submitted That The Counsel Who Was Appearing For The Assessee Also Did Not Communicate About The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Therefore, The Assessee Was Having No Knowledge About The Impugned Orders. He Has Further Submitted That When The Orders Were Received By The Assessee, It Was Covid-19

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 As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5.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 delay in filing the present appeal upto 30.06.2022 is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the appeals filed on 01.07.2022 are admitted as valid appeals for adjudication on merits

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

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is wholly erroneous. 7. BECAUSE the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) in Form 35 had specifically opted out of receipt of notices/communication from his office through email but despite that no hard/physical copy of any notice intimating fixation of appeal was ever served upon the appellant

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

unexplained credits of Rs.14,88,315/- in his bank account. Since the search of the Departmental data base did not reveal that the assessee had filed any return prior to the investments, the ld. AO had reason to believe that there was income escaping assessment to the extent of investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, in both assessment years

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO (NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

unexplained credits of Rs.14,88,315/- in his bank account. Since the search of the Departmental data base did not reveal that the assessee had filed any return prior to the investments, the ld. AO had reason to believe that there was income escaping assessment to the extent of investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, in both assessment years

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

unexplained credits of Rs.14,88,315/- in his bank account. Since the search of the Departmental data base did not reveal that the assessee had filed any return prior to the investments, the ld. AO had reason to believe that there was income escaping assessment to the extent of investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, in both assessment years

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

unexplained credits of Rs.14,88,315/- in his bank account. Since the search of the Departmental data base did not reveal that the assessee had filed any return prior to the investments, the ld. AO had reason to believe that there was income escaping assessment to the extent of investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, in both assessment years

MOHAMMAD GHUFRAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO - 2(5), KAUSHAMBI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

Unexplained Investment is bad, illegal and deserves to be deleted. ITA No.126/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 6 4. Because the Order is bad in the eyes of law and against the facts. 3.0 During the course of hearing, one Shri Mohit Singh (assessee’s representative) moved an application dated 27.10.2025 on behalf of the assessee for adjournment, stating therein that

ALOK RAI,ALLAHBAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and another addition of Rs.9,09,142/- was made towards income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate

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 amounting to Rs.14,02,000/- in the assessee’s bank account at Bank of Baroda, Koraon, Allahabad, but no ITR had been filed by the assessee