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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.02.2024 wherein the ld. Addl CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Allahabad on 12.12.2019 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That in any view of the matter

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 partly allowing the appeal of the assessee against the assessment done by the DCIT, Central Circle Allahabad on 25.06.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Because the learned CIT (A) was not legally justified in affirming the order of the assessing authority, regarding the invocation of section

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

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

250 that were issued by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee had not filed any submissions to throw a light on any grounds of appeal, the findings of the ld. AO could not be challenged only on submissions without any evidence and therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved

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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16.05.2024. The appeal was originally filed before the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad and 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 and on facts in dismissing appeal

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

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

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

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

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not allowing the assessee proper opportunity to explain the position. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts, by charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act 1961. 5. BECAUSE the appellant craves for the indulgence of your goodself

DHIRENDRA SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 03.07.2024. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. Because the order of learned AO as confirmed by the Appellate Authority is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. Because the order is based on improper notice u/s 143 (2) and thus deserves to be annulled

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

6-C, Bank Road, Allahabad- vs. Circle-1(1), Allahabad 211002, Uttar Pradesh PAN:AAPPB9960P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 05.12.2024 Date of pronouncement: 05.12.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, A.M. The present appeal emanates from the order under section 250

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

68,300/- to the income of the assessee. Further, 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 order dated 21.12.2018 passed

HARAKH CHAND GLASS PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.01/Alld/2019 [In Ita No.60/Alld/2019] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Department By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

68 since the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction, stood duly established. Further, the transaction is between existing active companies and through banking channel. S.A. No.01/Alld/2019 & ITA No.60/ALLD/2019 Page 3 of 14 6. BECAUSE, wholly without prejudice to the aforementioned Grounds of Appeal and as an alternative, the impugned order is unsustainable in law since the Assessing Officer

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

250/-, wherein , inter-alia, an amount of Rs. 11,20,461/- was added to income of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act, on the grounds that the assessee has not deposited employee share of PF/ESI collected/deducted by assessee from the salaries of employees

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

68 of the Act hence the entire actin is bad in law. 7. That in view of the matter the Assessing office was wrong in adding only entries in bank when there was debit entries also and the bank entries both credit and debit should be considered as a whole hence the entire action is bad in law. 8. That