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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of 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

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)

reopen the assessment proceedings already made and determine the total income of the tax-payer including undisclosed income, notwithstanding that the assessee has filed return of income before the date of search which stood processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the 1961 Act . The Revenue succeeds on this issue. Now, we have to adjudicate that whether assessment framed u/s 153A

SHRI MAHAVEER CHARITABLE TRUST ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer 46, Rajendra Nagar, Baluaghat, (Exemption), Allahabad Allahabad-211003, U.P. Pan: Aahts9123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of 14.10.2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Dated 28.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Allahabad Dated 30.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 28.09.2024 Affirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,97,69,650/- On Account Of Donation Received & Rejection Of The Submissions Of The Appellant That Appeal Proceedings Pending Against The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.03.2016 Are Infructuous Is Absolutely Illegal & Against The Principles Of Law. 2. Because The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit V. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [27.07.2007] Had Observed That When An Order Of Assessment Is Reopened, The Previous Assessment Will Be Held To Be Set Aside & The Whole Proceedings Would Start Afresh & In The Case In Hands The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Has Been Set-Aside By The Then Incumbent Ld. Cit(E); That Is To Say That No Assessment Existed On The Date When Order Dated 28.02.2018 Under Section 263 Of The Act Was Passed By The Then Incumbent Cit(E). 3. Because Section 263 Of The Act Grants Power To The Jurisdictional Commissioner To Direct For Revision Of Orders & Reads As Under (Relevant Statute Quoted):

reopened, the previous assessment would be held to be set aside and the whole proceedings would start afresh. In the present matter, the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 had been set aside by the then CIT(E) and thereafter no assessment order existed after 28.02.2018 when the order under section 263 was passed by the then ld. CIT (Exemption

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reopening cases and penalty cases. When Section 153D is juxtaposed with Section 151 and Section 274, most important differences which is peculiar to Section 153D is the word "Each". Word each is not used in Section 151 and Section 274 and the word "Each" is specially and consciously referred to in Section 153D so that assessee-wise and year-wise

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reopening cases and penalty cases. When Section 153D is juxtaposed with Section 151 and Section 274, most important differences which is peculiar to Section 153D is the word "Each". Word each is not used in Section 151 and Section 274 and the word "Each" is specially and consciously referred to in Section 153D so that assessee-wise and year-wise

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reopening cases and penalty cases. When Section 153D is juxtaposed with Section 151 and Section 274, most important differences which is peculiar to Section 153D is the word "Each". Word each is not used in Section 151 and Section 274 and the word "Each" is specially and consciously referred to in Section 153D so that assessee-wise and year-wise

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reopening cases and penalty cases. When Section 153D is juxtaposed with Section 151 and Section 274, most important differences which is peculiar to Section 153D is the word "Each". Word each is not used in Section 151 and Section 274 and the word "Each" is specially and consciously referred to in Section 153D so that assessee-wise and year-wise

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

reopening of the concluded assessment by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act, to be valid. 5.311 So far as additions on the merits , the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, that there is no suppression of interest income with regard to the interest income disclosed in the Profit

AMIT KUMAR,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 Sri. Amit Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, S/O Laxmi Chand, 384, Sulem Ward-2(1) Allahabad, U.P. Sarai, Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Amwpk3964B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: .08.2021

68 of the IT Act without any basis by the assessing officer and the same as maintained by the first appellate authority in haste by ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified, incorrect and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 10- That in any view of the matter