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

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

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

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

ALFALAH EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE SOCIETY ,FAIZABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Alfalah Educational & Welfare Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Society Qusba Bhadarsa Department Bharatkund, Faizabad, U.P. Pan:Aadfi7669A (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 Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.09.2014. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The 1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of Rs.2,45,71,147/- U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 02.03.2023 Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Appeal Decided Ex-Parte By Cit Appeal Nfac By Order Dated 13.09.2024 Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee Is Highly Unjustified. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceedings As Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Is An Illegal Proceedings & There Is No Concealment Of Income & Moreover There Was No Proper Satisfaction Was Recorded By The Department For Initiation Of Proceedings Hence Entire Proceedings Liable To Be Annulled.

u/s 69 of the Act is incorrect as no investment was made by the assessee society in time deposit in Punjab National Bank as alleged and the chart as reproduced in the assessment order at Para 3.3 Pg. 4-8 by alleging investment made in time deposit is nothing but amount transferred to autosweep account out of reversal credited from

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

69,22,628/-. 6. That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other and requires separate adjudication. 7. That the assessee craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

69,22,628/-. 6. That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other and requires separate adjudication. 7. That the assessee craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under

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

PANKAJ KUMAR CHOUBEY,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Pankaj Kumar Choubey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhorsar, Amoi, Mirzapur 3(2), Mirzapur Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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 Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Compliance. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1- That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Order Passed U/S 144/147 Of The It Act Dated 06/12/2018 Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law & By Such Order Income As Determined At Rs.32,22,490/- By Making Illegal Addition Is Highly Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That Any View Of The Matter The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Was Wrong In Passing The Order Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Is Also Not A Speaking Order In The Eyes Of Law. 3- That In Any View Of The Matter Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Dated 26/03/2018 As Mentioned In The Order Was Not Served On The Assessee Or On Any Family Member Of The Assessee, Therefore The Allegation Of Service Of The Notice In The Order Is Incorrect.

u/s 142(1) of the Act as alleged in the assessment order hence the entire assessment is illegal and bad in law and by such order Income as determined at Rs.32,22,490/- is not correct. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 32,22,490/- so made without appreciating the correct facts is incorrect

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

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, 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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts