M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

house, 4 Faile Place, Notice Served Private Limited 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 2 AprajitaVanijya 7A, Bentinck Street, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence returned to sender Zigzag Vanijya 146/2, Old China Bazar, No mention floor 3 Private Limited Kolkata-700001 R/No. hence R. to sender 4 ShradhaVintrade 9/12, Lal Bazar, 2nd Floor, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

property was happened between M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi and with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja President of Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti and the contrary view taken by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to confirm the addition in the hands of appellant is wholly illegal and erroneous. 8. BECAUSE there was no business dealings with Dinesh

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

property was happened between M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi and with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja President of Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti and the contrary view taken by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to confirm the addition in the hands of appellant is wholly illegal and erroneous. 8. BECAUSE there was no business dealings with Dinesh

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

69,000). Hence, in view of the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, I have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for the AY under consideration, and therefore, notice under section 148 is being issued.” 8. It is apparent from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment that

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

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

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

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

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

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

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

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

house property, interest, salary and interest from partnership firm M/s Diamond Brick Field. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 5.12.2013. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153A for six years i.e. assessment year 2008-09 to 2013- ITA Nos.145 to 150/ALLD/2018