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 amounting to Rs.9,10,000/- in its bank account maintained with SBI, Jaitpur, Mahoba and Rs.2,10,000/- in its bank account maintained with Allahabad, Belatal, Mahoba, but the assessee had not filed

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 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 Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

unexplained money is not correct since the amount was deposited from definite sources which fact duly verified by the then assessing officer hence action on same material by the assessing officer simply on change of opinion and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter the assessee reserves his right

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

unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, after allowing deduction of Rs.10,000/- under section 80TTA of the Act, computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.38,31,700/-. 2.1 The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested

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

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.

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 and not a piece- meal hence