MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

purchases which has been accepted in earlier years, moreover, when no defect or discrepancy has been found in Sales against purchases/manufacturing in any year of assessment completed as the same has been accepted. ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 8 of 158 15. The ld.AO has failed to conduct inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the Act but has made spot

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

natural justice. Further, three Tribunals on similar set of facts and with reference to the very same share i.e. M/s Global In fratech and Finance Ltd. have decided the issue in favour o the assessee holding that the assessee was not engaged in bogus purchase

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice, which mandates to have the right to be heard and respond to all evidence ITA Nos.190 & 191/LKW/2020 Page 12 of 30 considered against them. The failure to confront these crucial reports and notices deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to contest the allegations on which the Pr.CIT's order under section 263 was based. In conclusion

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

bogus purchases as genuine ones after\nadmitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

natural justice. Prayer Considering above, it is prayed that the addition should be deleted in full and order passed should be quashed.” 4.2 During the appellate proceeding, the appellant has made another written submission which is reproduced hereunder:- “Further to our submissions already made during the course of appeal proceedings before your Honour, the assessee most humbly submits as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

natural justice. Prayer Considering above, it is prayed that the addition should be deleted in full and order passed should be quashed.” 4.2 During the appellate proceeding, the appellant has made another written submission which is reproduced hereunder:- “Further to our submissions already made during the course of appeal proceedings before your Honour, the assessee most humbly submits as under

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

bogus purchases as genuine ones after\nadmitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\"1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

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

justice. I.T.A. No.382/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without taking cognizance of documents on record

MS. GUNJAN AGARWAL,BARABANKI. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(4), BARABANKI.

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2012-13 Ms. Gunjan Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-5(4), Fatehpur, Barabanki. Barabanki- 225001 (U.P.). Pan Aaspa 4237D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024 O R D E R

bogus and that the same was unexplained cash credit in terms of Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. However, the assessee was given as many as eight opportunities but there was no representation or submission made by the assessee before the NFAC and, therefore, the appeal

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

bogus transactions of purchase and sale of shares. 12. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice

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

natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case and to file its replies and clarification, is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in making assessment

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

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

natural justice and\nwithout giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case\nand to file its replies and clarification, is bad in the eye of law and liable to be\nquashed.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have\nerred, both on facts and in law, in making assessment

RAJINDER KUMAR,ALLAHABAD ROAD, FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.293/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajinder Kumar V. Income Tax Officer Mahavir Agricultural Industries, Income Tax Department, Allahabad Road, Faizabad- Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh- 224001. 224001. Pan:Aawpk2983L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 27 11 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 17.02.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case On The File. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 10,58,720/- Made By The Ao Under Section 69C Of Income Tax Act In Respect Of Purchases Made By The Assessee From M/S. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Gravely Erred In Not Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Assessment Wrongly Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Ao. Page 2 Of 4 5. That The Appellant Begs To Add Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.” 2. Apropos To The Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset, Contended That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Giving Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. He, Therefore, Prayed That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication.

purchase of Rs.10,58,720/- from the said party as bogus made the impugned addition. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the addition made on this account. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed certain submissions; however, in the appeal proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Consequently

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

natural justice. 7. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant" craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee was found to have purchased shares of M/s Kappac

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW vs. SMT. MOHINI AGARWAL, L/H LATE MUKESH AGARWAL, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

natural relief, but was deprived of. Law of the land is to provide justice to everyone and is designed with human touch, so Law and its executors cannot be inhuman. This premise was never in consideration during the proceedings of assessment. Now, in Tribunal we have fair chance of being heard and we plead before the Honorable bench to consider

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Justice. Secondly, in any case the rate difference is arises out on the expense relating to External Electrification and Service Tax which is also prevailing during the year, relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13, as in earlier years. (d) The rational in working out the rate difference is beyond comprehension. The addition of Rs.3,28,24,607/- as per Para

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

justice and should be quashed in limine. He drew\nour attention to the written submissions filed by the assessee in the office of the\nLd. PCIT during the proceedings under section 263 of the Act which is reproduced\nas under: -\nThe Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax\nBareilly\nRespected Sir\nRef- In the matter of Alliance Nirman Limited Bareilly Assessment Year