JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

CHANDRA BHAWAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ADDL./JOINT/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

U/s 250 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is bad in law and against the facts.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 2.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,10,370/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue, ‘whether the cash deposit

CHANDRA BHAWAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD-2(5), , KAUSHAMBI

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

U/s 250 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is bad in law and against the facts.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 2.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,10,370/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue, ‘whether the cash deposit

M/S JYOTI ERECTORS PVT LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 M/S Jyoti Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Near Amar Ujala Press Gt, Road, Circle-2, Allahabad Bamrauli, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aaccj0409K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Were As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2018 Framed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law & Vide Such Order The Income So Determined At Rs. 63,12,477/- In Arbitrary Manner Is Unjustified & Wrong Hence The Declared Income Of Rs. 18,86,600/- On The Basis Of Closed Books Of Accounts Should Have Been Accepted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 44,25,877/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Applying A Net Rate Of 7 Percent On Declared Receipt Of Rs. 9,01,78,242/- By Ignoring Closed Books Of Accounts Is Highly Unjustified & Wrong & Also Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The It Act Has Been Wrongly Invoked. Moreover No Comparable Case Has Been Cited By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order For Applying Such Higher Net Profit Rate Nor Past History In Assessee Own Case Was Considered Hence The Addition So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is bad both on the facts and in law and vide such order the income so determined at Rs. 63,12,477/- in arbitrary manner is unjustified and wrong hence the declared income of Rs. 18,86,600/- on the basis of closed books of accounts should have been accepted in the facts