MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount
For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250
41,23,338/- in his Capital account. The ld. AO noticed, that sundry creditors of Rs.4,00,25,766/- were outstanding on 31.03.2016 and that exempt income of Rs. 5,60,500/- (being agricultural income), had also been disclosed. Accordingly, the assessee was required to explain the sundry creditors of Rs. 4,00,25,766/-, by furnishing supporting evidences like
