TIRLOCHAN SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirlochan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Post Kadher Choura Ward 2(5) Rampur Kone, Puranpur Pilibhit Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Damps7604M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

demonetization period in his two ITA No.497/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 5 Bank accounts maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Puranpur. The AO issued statutory notices and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits. However, the assessee did not furnish any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits. The AO, thereafter, reduced the amount

SHARDA DEVI,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BASTI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 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), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

demonetization was unexplained money under section 69A. He, therefore, brought the same to tax @ 60% under section 115BBE. He also added back the interest received on these deposits of Rs. 15,797/- as income from other sources. Subsequently, the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act and issued a show cause notice. The assessee

RAJ MANI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Mani Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) D-124, Harihar Nagar Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bcopr2293D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Person, E-Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 1.8.2017, Declaring A Total Taxable Income Of Rs.2,87,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,45,850/- By Making Addition Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.16,58,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited During Demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Under Section 246A Of The Act Before The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-1 On 18.12.2019. Later On, The Appeal Migrated To Nfac, Who Vide Its

demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal under section 246A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow-1 on 18.12.2019. Later on, the appeal migrated to NFAC, who vide its ITA No.382/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 impugned order dated 31.10.2023 dismissed assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution by the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached

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

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is in transport business and is also earning income from agriculture and has been filing the return of income for the last more than 10 years and the returns are being filed under

PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

demonetization in assessee's bank accounts treated as unexplained. It is prayed that the disallowance u/s 68 is uncalled for and hence may very kindly be deleted. 3. None has appeared for the Assessee despite issuance of Notice through RPAD, which Notice has not returned unserved. However, finding that the matter can be decided in the absence of the Assessee

ATHLETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. 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

demonetization duly recorded in the Cash book and deposited in Bank Account, hence no addition of Rs.13,54,100/- should not be made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of I. T. Act. 4. The books of accounts of the Assessee produced during the assessment Proceeding has been accepted hence no addition should be made merely relying

MR. ADITYA KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2017-18 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), 1, Anora, Amausi, Lucknow Lucknow-226008 Pan Bfapok 7298L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Siddharth Kohli, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

demonetization period viz. 08-11-2016 to 30-12-2016. Accordingly, the capital gains ought to be assessed as on 04-10-2016 under the transfer of property Act and case fully be assessed entirely under the heads LTCG applicable in the instant case. Hence the entire assessment and penalty deserved to be quashed being ab-initio null and void

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

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

delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the\ndelay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on\nmerits.\n(B) In this case, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was\npassed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short)\nwhereby the assessee's total income was assessed at\nRs.83

KAMRAN ZUBAIR,KANPUR vs. THE AO CIRCLE-1(2)(1),, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamran Zubair V. The Assessing Officer 112/349-D, Swaroop Nagar Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaepz7118E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

demonetization period. Since the AO was not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to the aforesaid cash deposits, he treated the cash deposits of Rs.27,50,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

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

demonetization period. Since the assessee failed to offer any explanation with regard to the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.13,96,450/- as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment 143(3) of the Act, assessing

ALL INDIA MINORITIES WELFARE SOCEITY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 All India Minorities V. The Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemption) 4-A, La Palace, Shahnajaf Lucknow Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aacta4540P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

Demonetization was a temporary deposit and does not represent an actual income of the society. The amounts were merely collected in the normal course of business and for educational purposes. 4. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT, Appeals erred in confirming the deposit of Rs. 25,73,980/- as income by classifying

RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ITO, , NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar Tiwari V. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito, Tharakki Patti Nfac, Delhi Gorwaghat, Gonda Tan/Pan:Ajapt7765Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 03 2025 O R D E R

demonetized. Details are as under:- 11-11- DATE 2016 21-11-2016 07-12-2016 27-12-2016 29-12-2016 DENOMI NATION Pieces Amount Pieces Amount Pieces Amount Pieces Amount Pieces Amount 500 (New 50 25000 100 50000 30 15000 0 0 0 0 notes

RAJENDRA PRATAP YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendra Pratap Yadav V. The Cit(A) 21/202, Indira Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acmpy9678E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

demonetization. 2. That Ld. Officer made addition of Rs.14,36,000 ignoring the fact that such proceeds are forming part of the business receipts duly disclosed by the assessee and previous savings of the assessee. ITA No.614/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 6 3. That Ld. Officer made addition of Rs.14,36,000 being amount deposited during the period Ignoring the fact

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Gupta V. Ito-2(1) 69/192, Chitvapur Lucknow Station Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akcpg5937A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

demonetization period (from 08.11.2016 to 31.03.2016). The Assessing Officer (AO) ITA No.695/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the source of aforementioned cash deposits and also to file the return of income for the year under consideration. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO. Thereafter

UMA SHANKAR AWASTHI,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(4), UNNAO

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shanker Awasthi V. Income Tax Officer 2(4) House No.76 Unnao Hiran Nagar, Unnao Tan/Pan:Afypa1750N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

demonetization period, the assessee had deposited in his Bank Account a total amount of Rs.14,45,000/-, out of which Rs.9,37,500/- were in old Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- notes, which were to be treated as unexplained and were to be added to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income

SHIV SWAMI VERMA,BARABANKI vs. ITO-5(5), BARABANKI-1

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shiv Swami Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 5(5) Village Muhari Purwa Barabanki Faizabad Road Paisar Dehat, Barabanki Tan/Pan:Aenpv8762R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kr. Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Notices were issued to the assessee under section 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to file his return of income. However, the assessee did not file his return of income. The Assessing ITA No.362/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and completed

DEVIKA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Devika Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) B-1529, Indira Nagar Lucknow - New Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cmips8743J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

demonetization period as Rs.13,84,500/- instead of the correct figure of Rs.13,21,500/-. 6. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that bank accounts in which specified bank notes have been deposited by the assessee are forming part of the books of account of the assessee which has been duly audited by a Chartered Accountant

MUKESH KUMAR JAISWAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee’s business is trading of liquor. The assessee filed his return of income on 30/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.9,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited