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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

57,800= 1,02,40,657/- 55% of the same 56,32,361/- Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. Addition of Rs. 56,32,361/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. (ii) Regarding Gold Jewellery: Plain reading of the submission of the assessee on this issue, as quoted above

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

57,800= 1,02,40,657/- 55% of the same 56,32,361/- Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. Addition of Rs. 56,32,361/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. (ii) Regarding Gold Jewellery: Plain reading of the submission of the assessee on this issue, as quoted above

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)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

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)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

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)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CIRCLE-1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of F-6, Lowther Road George Town, Income Tax (Circle-1), Allahabad-211006 Allahabad Pan:Axvpm0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1- That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act Dated 10.12.2018 By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) By Passing Ex- Parte Decision Is Uncalled For & More So Addition Made Are Illegal. The Action U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Totally Illegal. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Both The Lower Authorities Decided The Matter Ex-Parte Without Considering The Fact & Without Providing Opportunity To The Assessee Hence The Order Of Two Lower Authorities Liable To Be Cancelled As Illegal In The Fact Of Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Cit (Appeal) Is Highly Unjustified In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Giving Reasonable Time, Without Service Of Notice & More So No Personal Hearing Was Allowed In This Background Addition As Confirmed By Cit Appeal Is Uncalled For. 1 A.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra

u/s 147/144 dated 10.12.2018 by the assessing officer by making two addition amounting to Rs.35,05,580/- and Rs.68,300/- which are made by A.O. & maintained by CIT(Appeal) by order dated 27.06.2024 by passing ex-parte decision is highly unjustified and such action is illegal. 5. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.35

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

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

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCT, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para