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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

ANOOP SINGH,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Anoop Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ahuja Bazar Allahabad Kaushambi Tan/Pan:Aqkps6453R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2019 O R D E R

penalty levied with reference to the additions of Rs.11,25,084/- by invoking the provision of section 68 has been

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings. 11. The appellant craves right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings. 11. The appellant craves right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

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

penalty notice, the assessee filed a partial reply, but the ld. AO records that he did not give a specific reply with regard to the issues raised in the notice under section 142(1). Accordingly, ld. AO did a best 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra judgment assessment and added back a sum of Rs.35,05,380/- that

SMT. RANJANA BAJPAI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ALLAHABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have also been challenged. 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai 3. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued through, written submissions, that the appellant was belonging to a very wealthy / well- to do family, with her husband being a high net worth individual. It was averred that the assessee was not required

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. The matter went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Gorakhpur. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred to the NFAC. Before the NFAC, the assessee submitted that she was an individual having a dealership of Indian Oil Corporation, she had submitted her audited return of income before the due date 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

68,10,760/-, held that the assessee had sufficient funds but was willfully avoiding the payment of tax. Accordingly, he decided to impose a penalty of Rs. 27,26,200/- (being the average 10% of balance demand) by treating the assessee in default under section

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)

68,000/- by treating the same as unexplained, it was submitted that section 69A had no application to the said amounts and they were recorded in the books of accounts. With regard to the refusal to grant the concession under section 80C, he prayed that the same may be considered sympathetically in view of the fact that the assessee

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

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

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

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6