LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

deposits and agricultural income.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide explanations for huge cash

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

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

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

MOHAMMAD AHATEHSHAM,RAEBARELI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 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)

condone the delay and admit the case for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The ld. AO obtained information from the Insight Portal, that the assessee had made the cash deposits

DHARAMVEER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

cash deposit of Rs.13,96,450/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in adding back to the total income of the appellant/ assessee. 4. That Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as in facts in levying the highest tax u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the on the facts

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, 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 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

cash deposited during demonetization period was never assessed or questioned in show cause notice, and subsequently added in the order issued u/s 144 of the act, following the directions issued by Ld. JCIT. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 480 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal