AJIT TRIPATHI,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT (A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Ajit Tripathi, V. Income Tax Officer, Village Pandor, Jasra, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aknpt9902B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R

271 A at Rs. 25,000/- ii. That on estimate basis income was estimated Rs. 4,59,800/- as against Rs. 31,177/- shown. iii. That the authority below was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271A to a petty dairy income. iv. That however assessed tax has also been paid.” 3. The assessee is an individual

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

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)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

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)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. Aggrieved with this order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad. Subsequently, his appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC records that a total 13 notices were issued to the assessee during appeal proceedings and in response

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. Aggrieved with this order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad. Subsequently, his appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC records that a total 13 notices were issued to the assessee during appeal proceedings and in response

SHIV SHANKAR,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144, read with section 144B of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.87,46,000/-. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 04/10/2024, the assessee’s appeal

SHIV SHANKAR,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144, read with section 144B of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.87,46,000/-. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 04/10/2024, the assessee’s appeal

SHIV SHANKAR,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144, read with section 144B of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.87,46,000/-. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 04/10/2024, the assessee’s appeal

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,SULTANPUR vs. ITO ,SULTANPUR, SULTANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Singh V. The Ito 609, Kni Kasba Sultanpur Sultanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bidps4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144 (Madras), Sakthivel Bankers vs. ACIT (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144 (Madras), Sakthivel Bankers vs. ACIT (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144 (Madras), Sakthivel Bankers vs. ACIT (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144 (Madras), Sakthivel Bankers vs. ACIT (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that