ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

addition. seal (SUSHIL RAJESH KERKETTA) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Mirzapur Seal” 4.2. The assessee did not comply with the aforesaid Show Cause Notice(SCN) on the date fixed for hearing on 16.10.2017 , nor any adjournment application was filed by the assessee. The AO was pleased to complete reassessment

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- is against the facts of the case and is liable to be deleted.” Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath 8. Therefore, at the outset, we find that when the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.11.2015 and the assessee

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- is against the facts of the case and is liable to be deleted.” Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath 8. Therefore, at the outset, we find that when the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.11.2015 and the assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additions in respect of the assessee in a search assessment under section 153A could only be made on the basis of undisclosed income unearthed in the course of search and seizure action, the ld. CIT(A) held that Board’s Circular No. 7/2003, did not make any such prohibition that the assessment or reassessment

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additions in respect of the assessee in a search assessment under section 153A could only be made on the basis of undisclosed income unearthed in the course of search and seizure action, the ld. CIT(A) held that Board’s Circular No. 7/2003, did not make any such prohibition that the assessment or reassessment

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additions in respect of the assessee in a search assessment under section 153A could only be made on the basis of undisclosed income unearthed in the course of search and seizure action, the ld. CIT(A) held that Board’s Circular No. 7/2003, did not make any such prohibition that the assessment or reassessment

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

addition was made by the AO with respect to bank interest of Rs. 65,908/- , and also unexplained investment in Axis Bank Mutual Fund of Rs. 10,00,000/-, were added by AO to the income of the assessee, vide reassessment

M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition