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, 69B and 69C, the words used, showed that before any of these sections could be invoked, the condition precedent as to the existence of investment, expenditure, and money must be conclusively established by the material

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) 1964 refers to the treatment of unexplained cash credits. This section places the onus of proof on the taxpayer who has received any Sum of money

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

unexplained money. Further, the appellant has not furnished any explanation regarding creditworthiness of transactions entered into with Mr. Piyush Verma. Merely producing copy of bank statement without any satisfactory explanation cannot justify the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender. Further, despite affording various opportunities, the appellant failed to produce copy of ITR and/or financial statements, signed copy of confirmation

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

unexplained gold jewellery accordingly. 4.1.5 In case of Silver bullions, the dispute is of weight and purity of silver. Admittedly, there is no stock register being maintained by the assessee for silver bullion. The objection regarding the weighement is without any basis and is, therefore, rejected. Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. 4.2 Accordingly, this ground

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

unexplained gold jewellery accordingly. 4.1.5 In case of Silver bullions, the dispute is of weight and purity of silver. Admittedly, there is no stock register being maintained by the assessee for silver bullion. The objection regarding the weighement is without any basis and is, therefore, rejected. Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. 4.2 Accordingly, this ground

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.

68,500/- as disclosed from savings from salary income, were next to impossible. He, therefore, added the same back to the income of the assessee, holding them to be unexplained. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had received unsecured loans / deposits amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- from five different persons. He asked the assessee to furnish details

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.

money for the unexplained investment was generated and when it was generated and thereafter makes the necessary adjustments in his account to account for that escaped income, so that it may thereafter be assessed to tax under the appropriate head and in the appropriate year. Merely stating that the investment arose out of undeclared business income or undeclared rental income

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

unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.5.25 lakhs on this account. With regard to the opening balance of Rs.55,51,043/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had not given any clear explanation for the opening balance in the capital account. This was a credit entry made

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

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

unexplained cash credit for the A.Y.1992-93 to 1998-99. The addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act and the consequential disallowance of interest in the appeal for the A.Y.1992-93 to 1998-99 in two set of appeals were adjudicate by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2005 for the A.Y.1992-93 and another set of appeal

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Unexplained cash deposit Rs.10,50,000/-. 2. Aggrieved with this action of ld. AO, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) challenging all the three additions. Before the ld. CIT(A), some additional evidences were submitted and a report was also called from ld. AO. After considering the facts and documents before him, the ld. CIT(A) directed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in credit sales. Hence, it had been treated as unexplained sales and added to the income of the assessee firm. The assessee had been provided due opportunity to show how this difference occurred, during the course of appeal and remand proceedings, but firstly the assessee could not provide the details of the improper command that resulted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in credit sales. Hence, it had been treated as unexplained sales and added to the income of the assessee firm. The assessee had been provided due opportunity to show how this difference occurred, during the course of appeal and remand proceedings, but firstly the assessee could not provide the details of the improper command that resulted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in credit sales. Hence, it had been treated as unexplained sales and added to the income of the assessee firm. The assessee had been provided due opportunity to show how this difference occurred, during the course of appeal and remand proceedings, but firstly the assessee could not provide the details of the improper command that resulted

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called “ the Act”) .We have heard both the parties through Video Conferencing mode through Virtual Court. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 544/Alld./2014for ay: 2009-10in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench , Allahabad(hereinafter called “ the tribunal”) , reads

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction of the assessee hence entire impugned proceeding liable to be reverse. 18. That in any view of the matter affidavit as filed before the lower authority was totally ignored and even no statement as such on basis of affidavit was recorded hence addition is unwarranted

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction of the assessee hence entire impugned proceeding liable to be reverse. 18. That in any view of the matter affidavit as filed before the lower authority was totally ignored and even no statement as such on basis of affidavit was recorded hence addition is unwarranted

SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT (P) LTD.,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction of the assessee hence entire impugned proceeding liable to be reverse. 18. That in any view of the matter affidavit as filed before the lower authority was totally ignored and even no statement as such on basis of affidavit was recorded hence addition is unwarranted