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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69A of the Act is deleted." As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

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

68 is concerned, the onus was wholly upon the assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 69A on account of loan taken from Mr. Umang Grover is confirmed. Loan taken from Shri Piyush Verma amounting to Rs.11,75,000/- Here again, the appellant has submitted bank account statement of Shri Piyush Verma as well as confirmation letter of amount advanced as loan on plain white paper. On perusal of bank account statement of Shri

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)

section 69A of the Act in support of Rs. 1,68,000/- was not maintainable, because the same were

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

68,810/- out of which the assessee has claimed Rs. 22,17,558/- as expenses under various heads, which means that the assessee has already claimed all expenses incurred . The AO invoked deeming provisions of Section 69A

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

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

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

69A of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of Poultry Farming and maintained regular books of account which were audited. It was submitted that during