WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

deposited in cash in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer also took notice of interest amounting to Rs.6,643/- in the assessee’s Saving Bank Account and brought the same to tax. 2.1 The assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed vide impugned appellate order dated

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KUMARGANJ FAIZABAD vs. ITO-1, FAIZABAD-NEW, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay but in the interest of justice, he decided to condone it all the same. On the merits of the case, he rejected the contention of the case that the proceedings were not validly initiated, holding that the proceedings had been opened under section 147 after obtaining approval from the competent authority under section

SITA RAM RASTOGI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5),, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

cash deposit in the books maintained by the assessee whereas there is no such single deposit in the books. 2. That the additions of Rs.15,688/- and Rs.5,693/- have been made without any basis which are simply the guess work and therefore not justified. 3. That the learned Income Tax Officer has not pointed out any mistake or discrepancy

MS. HARDEEP KAUR,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE -3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

deposited out of business receiving, Agriculture activities and accumulated past savings available as cash in hand as on date of demonetization. Thus, no addition can be made in the present sets of facts and circumstances. 3. The addition upheld is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay and oblige.” Page 3 of 8 3. Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case as stated by the appellant is reproduced as under: “Your appellant is Individual and SADHU/ Saint since 1980. He has set up his ashram at Village Mandali in Mehsana and is trustee of Namami Satguruswami Trust. He had received cash

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

cash deposited in the bank is escaped income. The CIT (A), has erred in law in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. There is a delay of 87 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed application dated 11.7.2022, seeking condonation

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condonation of delay. This would have permitted the appeal to be evaluated based on its substantive merits. 2. The Total Income reported amounts to Rs. 3,84,520.00. However, the assessment was conducted at a substantially inflated figure of Rs. 1,11,14,956.00. This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances made by the Income Tax Department, based

ASHOK KUMAR RAJA,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4),, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraashok Kumar Raja V. Ito-2(4) Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit- Pilibhit, U.P. 262001. Pan:Alppr2326G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

cash was deposited as well as withdrawn for agriculture purpose. 5. That notices had been issued on several dates but the appellant was unable to reply those notices as the notices were issued on his temporary address and he was not aware of e-mail and portal. 6. That if the appellant had received an opportunity of being heard then

RAKESH RAWAT,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1),, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

cash deposits. After recording reasons and obtaining prior approval a reassessment proceeding in assessee’s case by service of notice u/s 148 of the Act was initiated. In the event of failure on the part of assessee to respond any of the notices issued u/s 148, 142(1) & show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, the Ld. AO culminated

RAKESH RAWAT,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1), , LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

cash deposits. After recording reasons and obtaining prior approval a reassessment proceeding in assessee’s case by service of notice u/s 148 of the Act was initiated. In the event of failure on the part of assessee to respond any of the notices issued u/s 148, 142(1) & show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, the Ld. AO culminated

KAMLA VERMA,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(2)(2), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamla Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 185/7, Vijay Nagar Ward 1(2)(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akcpv2921K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

deposited in bank, disbelieving the assessee's explanation which explanation has not been found to be false or untrue, the addition made be deleted. 02. Because the assessee appellant being a retired person earlier being in service, not keeping well, amounts received by her on retirement and withdrawn from bank and held a cash, cannot be treated as unexplained

RAKESH KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -5, LUCKNOW

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)

deposited in SBN out of opening cash balance and the remaining were in legal denominations of currency. 1 Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal A.Y. 2017-18 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, impugned addition/allowance assessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustied, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without

SUDHIR SHANKAR HALWASIYA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, The Acit-Iii, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aanph9171L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 3.11.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Was Filed Against The Order Passed By The Acit-3, Lucknow Under Section 143(3) On 20.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

condoning the delay. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the following points:- i. Whether loans and advances were received were genuine and from disclosed sources. ii. Whether the deduction against income from other sources had been correctly shown in the return of income. iii. Whether the cash deposit

GYANENDRA PRATAP SRIVASTAVA,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-2, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyanendra Pratap Srivastava Ito-Ii V. Payagpur, Bahraich-271801. Bahraich-271801, Uttar Pradesh. Pan:Ataps3192C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the “Act”) and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2017 on the basis of that the assessee during the financial

MAA SIDDHIDATRI SEVA SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has though substantially allowed relief to the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, but he has upheld an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs which is on adhoc basis