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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

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

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

income. There is no choice with the AO except to make the assessments of the prescribed six assessment years. Once the assessments are to be mandatorily made in search cases, unlike the regular cases giving choice to the AO to make assessment only on considering it necessary or expedient, there is no requirement of acquiring any jurisdiction

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

income. There is no choice with the AO except to make the assessments of the prescribed six assessment years. Once the assessments are to be mandatorily made in search cases, unlike the regular cases giving choice to the AO to make assessment only on considering it necessary or expedient, there is no requirement of acquiring any jurisdiction

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

SYED SHOEB ASHRAF,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Syed Shoeb Ashraf, The Ito, 516, Vill & Post Baskhari, V. Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. Ambedkar Nagar-224129, U.P. Pan:Akrpa1580C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: 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

undisclosed income, keeping in view directions under section 144A, vide reassessment order dated 18.12.2017 passed by AO u/s 144 . 4. Being

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (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 Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

income and the issue again taken up in the reassessment proceeding which was already before the assessing officer at the time of original assessment and after due application of mind the then assessing officer passed speaking order u/s 143(3) of the Act hence simply on change of opinion the reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act as initiated

PAWAN KUMAR KASAUDHAN, L/H- POONAM GUPTA,SULTANPUR vs. ITO, SULTANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

undisclosed income without appreciating that the correct amount of credits in the Axis Bank Accounts was Rs. 10,69,97,950/- and Rs.2,05,766/- only and all credits in Bank Account are duly accounted for in the Audited books of Accounts and Return already filed u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further Bank Account Number 9140200131337065 does

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee’s contribution deducted is to be deposited together with

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee’s contribution deducted is to be deposited together with

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

undisclosed on the grounds that the assessee had only disclosed contract receipts of Rs.5,55,05,722/-. This action of the ld. AO was not correct. He further observed that the ld. AO had not invoked section 145(3) while making the assessment. He also observed that the ld. AO incorrectly treated interest income received from Bank of Baroda under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

undisclosed on the grounds that the assessee had only disclosed contract receipts of Rs.5,55,05,722/-. This action of the ld. AO was not correct. He further observed that the ld. AO had not invoked section 145(3) while making the assessment. He also observed that the ld. AO incorrectly treated interest income received from Bank of Baroda under

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment proceeding under section 147 is altogether fallacious and not into existence at all. 5. BECAUSE no notice under section 143(2) has been served upon appellant within stipulated time, therefore the whole of the assessment proceeding is vitiated for want of valid jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.39