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.

section 68 of the act as the income of the appellant for the AY 2018-19, and taxing the same at a higher rate of tax @ 60% plus 25 % surcharge, ignoring the evidences filed to prove the correctness of sundry creditors, as produced by the appellant during the course of assessment as well as during appellate proceedings. 10. Because

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

57,170/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, it is seen from the order of the ld. CIT(A), that the assessee failed to comply with the various notices under section 250 that were issued by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) observed that since

SURESH CHANDRA PURWAR (HUF),ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12

68, Zero Road, Allahabad, U.P. of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Allahabad , U.P. PAN:AALHS3075E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija , CIT, DR Date of hearing: 27. 07. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31.08. 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee has arisen

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

57 5. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Paville Fashions Private Limited , reported in (2017) 398 ITR 603 (Bom.HC) 10 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar Singh, Mirzapur, U.P. v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,Allahabad, U.P. 6. ITAT, Amritsar Bench-Vikrant Mehra v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR (Trib.) 382 ( Amritsar

AHMAD HUSSAIN KHAN,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3) of the Act. 3.3 There were further additions being made by AO on account of un-explained investment in FDR made by assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad on 12th July, 2008to the tune of Rs. 5lakh , and also on account of FDR of Rs. 5lakh made by assessee on 4th August, 2008 with

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales Rs.4,20,28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales Rs.4,20,28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

57,561.14 Cash Memo sales Rs.62,68,466.59 Total Sales (Excluding VAT) Rs.33,62,26,027.73 VAT @ 12.50% on sales Rs.4,20,28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38

ROHIT,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

57,31,919/- ii) Bogus Debtors 35,68,121/- iii) Cash payment made out of books 7,08,000/- iv) 1,85,000 Cash payment in contravention of section

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

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

57,000/- in the assessee’s bank account during the financial year 2010-11 and Rs.13,67,98,800/- during the year financial year 2011-12, at Jammu & Kashmir Bank, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In response to these notices under section

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

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

57,000/- in the assessee’s bank account during the financial year 2010-11 and Rs.13,67,98,800/- during the year financial year 2011-12, at Jammu & Kashmir Bank, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In response to these notices under section

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

57,88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para