SUMIT KESARWANI,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(1)(4), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumit Kesarwani V. Ito 1(1)(F) 52/26, Naya Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Biopk6450P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R

purchases tally with the returns filed with the Commercial Tax Department and nothing adverse has been pointed out by the Commercial Tax Department also in this regard. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee had inflated cash sales even prior to the declaration of the demonetization and had introduced bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW. vs. M/S. MG AUTOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW.

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

Bogus sales are not possible in sale of Honda Car as TCS @1% is deducted with sale consideration in excess of Rs. 10 Lakh per car. The assesse has also but up that the purchasers do insurance through App like Policy Bazar and it is not mandatory for purchasers to share the insurance details of vehicle with the seller

SHASHI GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(1)(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2017-18 Shashi Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Office–1(1)(4), Kanpur Kanpur Pan Acfpg 1367B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

bogus sales as unexplained cash credit is based on presumption and conjecture without assigning any justified adverse material. (ii) The cash deposit into Bank Account amounting to Rs. 12,30,000/- during demonetization period is well explained and accounted for into the books of accounts. The cash is deposited out of withdrawn from cash book in respective dates. The cash

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

purchases have also been accepted without any defect having been pointed out and the only suspicion of the AO is that the assessee could not have made such huge sales during the demonetization period. However, since there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had made bogus

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

purchases have also been accepted without any defect having been pointed out and the only suspicion of the AO is that the assessee could not have made such huge sales during the demonetization period. However, since there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had made bogus

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

purchases, sales and closing stock\nof goods. We find that in the order of ld.\nPCIT, nowhere the closing stock details\nmaintained by the assessee was even\nsought to be doubted. Hence, there is\nabsolutely no case on merits to re-\nexamine the source of cash deposits made\nin the bank account during the\ndemonetisation period

BALJEET SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.8,00,000/- on ad-hoc basis and added to the income of the assessee. When the books of account are I.T.A. No.637/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 accepted, purchase is not doubted, no specific transaction either in sale or purchase has been found to be bogus

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

bogus, primarily on account of the fact that the figures of purchases and sales in the period immediately prior to demonetization

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income-tax Act and computing tax liability on the same u/s 115BBE of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of Income

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

bogus cash sales/ receipts booked from 1.10.2016 to the date of announcement of demonetization on 8.11.2016 and also the cash sales/receipts shown just before demonetization period was bogus/non-genuine cash sales/receipts and was used as a device to legalize unaccounted money lying with the assessee before demonetization. 8. We, for the sake of convenience, reproduce below section

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

bogus cash sales claimed to have been done just before the demonetization period was only a device to legitimate the assessee’s unaccounted cash accumulated in the form of SBN (specified bnak notes in the denominations of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500 that were in circulation before announcement of demonetization). We are of the view, having regard to the aforesaid facts

SANGEETA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DCIT/ACIT-,LUCKNOW NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasangeeta Yadav V. Dcit/Acit-4 Chiraiyabagh, Raebareli Road, Lucknow New, Pratyaksh Utarthia, Lucknow-226025. Kar Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Acppy8178G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 07.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

purchase and sales ledgers, and sundry debtors’ and Income Tax Returns for the past three years. 7. No Evidence of Black Money or Undisclosed Income There is no evidence or indication that any cash amount was received from undisclosed or illegal sources. As a responsible and tax compliant citizen, I clearly state that all transactions during the demonetization period were

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

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

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

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

purchase cost of fixed assets and application\nof income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had\ndeposited cash amounting to Rs.5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during\nthe demonetization period. He asked the assessee to furnish copies

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55,15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during the demonetization period. He asked the assessee to furnish copies