NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

deposit in the cash books was treated by AO as cash Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. credit u/s. 68 of the Act, in the absence of proper evidences and the same was added by AO to the income of the assessee. 4d. The AO further observed that there were differences found in physical cash found during

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

deposit in the cash books was treated by AO as cash Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. credit u/s. 68 of the Act, in the absence of proper evidences and the same was added by AO to the income of the assessee. 4d. The AO further observed that there were differences found in physical cash found during

ASHA TEWARI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. ITO, 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Partawal, Maharajganj, U.P. Maharajganj Pan:Adjpt8320L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, On 18.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Which Actually Represented Receipts From Sale Of Petroleum Products Routed Through The Audited Books Of Accounts. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Without Appreciating That The Said Section Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Case As The Entries Of Bank Deposits Are Flowing Directly From The Audited Books Of Accounts. 3. Because The Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- Has Been Made & Sustained Simply On Negative Presumptions, Conjectures & Surmises To The Entire Exclusion Of Facts On Record. 4. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That During Demonetization Petrol Pumps Were Exempted From Taking Old Sbn & Hence There Was Nothing Unusual Or Incorrect With All Entries Routed Properly Through Audited Books Of Accounts.” 1 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari

section 142(1) along with questionnaire, asking the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in all her bank accounts, during the year and especially during the demonetization period. The assessee was also required to produce the cash book and the stock register for the full year, for both F.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 to verify

SRI VIJAY GAUTAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the Act. 3.2 Further, from the AIR information and on-going through the 26AS generated from AST software of the department, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has deposited Rs. 31,86,420/- in cash

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 dealing with cash credits , compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing at arm length

GHAUS MEMORIAL SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act. We have observed that the assessee is a co-operative society and has raised advance for land received from its members, which stood at Rs. 5,32,53,535/- as per audited Balance Sheet of the assessee as at 31.03.2001, out of which fresh amount of deposits/ cash

ACIT,ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SUNSINE INFRASTATE PVT TTD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the 1961 Act and made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. It was submitted that assessment was made by invoking provisions of Section 144 read with Section 153A of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by ld. CIT-DR before the Bench that there is no requirements

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

deposit for liquor applications. So it should not be added to my income in FY 2013-14, Page 2 of 11 3, Contribution from MD enterprises for Rs 24,50,000/- was mistakenly shown in balance sheet by my auditor Mrs Attaur Rehman as already told him these were amount contributed by my husband Mr Aditya Narayan Mishra

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

cash credits and in respect of which the interest payments had been made, were submitted before the Ld. C1T(A). 05. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while confirming the addition of Rs. 95.000/- being the security deposit in the name of Raj Bahadur treated as undisclosed deposit under section 68

VIPIN GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Vipin Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lal Bihara, G.T. Road, Bamrauli, Ward-2(3), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Anapg6886D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 16.05.2024. The Appeal Was Originally Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad & Was Subsequently Migrated To The National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Affording Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Head. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 5,68,500/- Made On Account Of Initial Capital Introduced To Start New Business By Invoking The Provision Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Unexplained Credit.

section 69A. 3. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) records that the assessee had failed to produce the cash book and had not submitted any details to the ld. AO or to him, as to why the addition of Rs.7,13,000/- on account of unexplained deposit

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

cash deposit of Rs. 1,68,000/- was treated as unexplained investment made by the assessee under section 69 of the Income

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

cash deposit in bank by the appellant is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case when the debit side in bank account or earlier bank account ignored and when the deposit made from time to time from definite sources. 6. That in any view of the matter the two lower authorities considered only credit side

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction