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

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

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

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

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT (P) LTD.,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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

M/S SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s

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

80,000/-) as partly maintained as per para 29 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained u/s