PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

cash deposited in bank accounts. viii. Monthly stock summary. ix. Details of job work expenses with TDS. x. Details of loan

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

TDS returns had been filed. vii. The addition of Rs. 1,62,63,564/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to ESI / Provident Fund were also questioned stating that the assessee had made the deposits before the due date of filing the return and therefore, should get the benefit of section 43B of the Income

ETAH WINE TRADERS,KASGANJ vs. PCIT, BAREIILY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaetah Wine Traders V. Pcit, Bareilly C/O Kunwar Devendra Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Central Yadav, Laxmiganj, Kasganj, Revenue Building, Kamla Uttar Pradesh-207123. Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Pan:Aaaae1483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 10 2024 O R D E R

TDS. (b) Large value cash deposit during demonetization period. (ii) During the year, the assessee had deposited Rs. 67.32 lakhs

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

deposit was received in cash. Since, the assessee had not finished the addresses of the persons from whom the amounts had been received in cash or any other supporting documents, the ld. AO held that neither was the identity of the persons during the advances proved nor was the genuineness of the transaction established. Accordingly, he added back

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

deposited in the bank on account of critical illness of the Managing Director of the company Shri Vijay Shanker Gupta, which stands established from the medical records. As against the claims of the Assessing Officer to have not sold the stock for 2 months, it is interesting to mention, that the assessee did not want to sell off the stocked

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

deposited in the bank on account of critical illness of the Managing Director of the company Shri Vijay Shanker Gupta, which stands established from the medical records. As against the claims of the Assessing Officer to have not sold the stock for 2 months, it is interesting to mention, that the assessee did not want to sell off the stocked

AMAR DIWAKAR,KANPUR NAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Amar Diwakar V. Dcit J0512, Avas Vikas Circle 4 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aiypd7324G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Gathered By The Department From Network Management System (Nms) Portal, The Assessee Had Earned Salary Income Of Rs.17,50,162/- From Fiit Jee Ltd & Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act

cash deposits made in his bank account. The submission of the assessee, vide reply dated 16.12.2019, was that he had earned salary of Rs.8,88,769/- and a TDS

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

deposit and TDS deducted thereon being allowed, the addition of Rs.2,44,000/- upheld by CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law be deleted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the assessee has an annual rental income of more than Rs.4 lakhs and also earned income from interest. It was further submitted

DR. R.M. LOHIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

cash deposits Rs. 1,42,05,865/- On account of non-deduction of tax u/s 194J Rs. 2,11,111/- On account of non-deduction of tax u/s 194C Rs. 20,23,872/- Rs. 22,41,06,732/- 6. That being aggrieved by the assessment order so passed, assessee filed appeal before the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash in hand are physically verified by the proprietor of the firm. Fixed Assets as shown in the balance sheet are subject to verification. Details of TDS deducted and deposited

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash in hand are physically verified by the proprietor of the firm. Fixed Assets as shown in the balance sheet are subject to verification. Details of TDS deducted and deposited

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash in hand are physically verified by the proprietor of the firm. Fixed Assets as shown in the balance sheet are subject to verification. Details of TDS deducted and deposited

DHARM RAJ KUSHWAHA,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(4), UNNAO

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharm Raj Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 2(4) 172, Saipur Sarauda Unnao Safpur Unnao (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bmepk6477L (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Business Correspondent Of State Bank Of India & Ran A Customer Service Point (Csp). The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,36,10,616/- From The Current Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Received An Amount Of Rs.11,550/- As ‘Commission/Brokerage’ & ‘Insurance Commission’ During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under

cash deposit or withdrawal due to his nature of business. The deposit is due to bank mitra (csc) business model. Therefore, as per income tax act, 1961, the assessee ITA No.494/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 7 is under the limit of return fling and no obligation on him to fle his return of income even though tds

M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Motor & General Sales V. Income Tax Officer Ltd (Tds)-Ii 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner Of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-Ii), Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Lknmo0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Ca Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 06 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R

cash upon the conclusion of the deposit period and can be utilised only towards the purchase of jewellery, the said scheme cannot be regarded as a fixed deposit scheme but only as advance towards purchases of jewellery and consequently, the discount offered by the company cannot be regarded as payment of interest as per provisions of Section

MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

cash deposits during the demonetization. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded ex parte to the assessee and assessed income at Rs.71,92,000/- making two additions, i.e. the amount deposited

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

depositing the TDS on LFC/ LTA being pald by bank to employees, being factually misconceived and unlawful, is liable to be quashed in its entirely.\n4. The appellant has raised 06 grounds of appeal, all of them relate to the levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act. A TDS verification was conducted at the branch of the bank during

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

deposit of TDS was violative of Explanation 1 to sub section 1 of section 37. Accordingly, the assessee was assessed at the total income of Rs.1,11,20,530/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee was a proprietorship

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

Cash Deposit was made without seeking clarification or allowing submission of evidence. Had the opportunity been granted, the appellant would have established the source of funds. 5. The addition of ₹1,00,000/-, received from Shri Dhananjay Singh as a friendly loan, was unjustified, as the transaction was fully explained. The addition is contrary to the law laid down