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

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 the assessment proceeding to the best of his judgment

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

reassessment order requires to be quashed. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to APB-2 pgs. 7 to 9, which is a copy of the objections raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer against the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. 5. It has further been contended that though the issue of the aforesaid objection raised against

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

reassessment order requires to be quashed. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to APB-2 pgs. 7 to 9, which is a copy of the objections raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer against the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. 5. It has further been contended that though the issue of the aforesaid objection raised against

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

delay in\nfiling of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is\nadmitted for hearing, on merits.\n(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the\nassessee’s side:\n14 \nINDEX\n15 \nITA 347/LKW/2025\nAY 2014-15\nPAPERBOOK\nin\nSh. Rakesh Kumar Pandey

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5

PRASHANT,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

reassessment without issuance and service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as required under Law. 3. That the Id.AO has erred in reopening assessment u/s 147 without lawful approval required u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 2 of 4 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in reopening assessment under section

SHRI NEERAJ BHARDWAJ,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Income Tax Officer 2(1), 503, Chandra Puri, Vs. Bareilly Line Par, Prem Nagar, Bareilly Pan – Amwpb4538N (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 5. The ld. AR, at the outset submitted that assessee had filed concise grounds of appeal on 3.8.2022 and the first ground relates to the grievance of assessee that the reopening u/s. 148 is bad in law in view of the fact that the case

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

ATUL KISHORE TRIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.13/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Kishore Trivedi V. Income Tax Officer -4(1) Sultanpur Road, Katra Bakkas, Income Tax Appellate Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002. Tribunal Building, Lucknow-226002. Pan:Aodpt5131L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 11 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

reassessment vide appeal order u/s 250 of the ITA, 1961 dated 05.11.2024. Thus, the penalty-imposed u/s 271(1)(c) when the initial order has been set aside for fresh consideration, is unjustified and deserves to be set aside. 3. That the penalty order of the Ld. CIT (A), dated 21.08.2024, having been passed without affording proper and justified opportunity

SHOBHA YADAV,CHANDPURA BACHHANA ,BILHAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , KNP-W

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv 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 Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

reassessment order is factually erroneous in treating the cash deposits in the appellant's bank account as unexplained income, without considering that the bank account used was a savings account and not a business account, and no such unexplained cash was deposited during the relevant year. 9. That the impugned order passed by CIT(A) without condoning the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring a book profit of Rs.5,20,24,121/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on an income of Rs.5

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

condone the delay in filing of the cross- objections and proceed to adjudicate them on merits. 3. We first take up the issue raised by the assessee in I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2015 for assessment year 2011-12. This appeal has been reinstituted under the direction of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of Lucknow Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.101/2016 dated 06/02/2017

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

condone the delay in filing of the cross- objections and proceed to adjudicate them on merits. 3. We first take up the issue raised by the assessee in I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2015 for assessment year 2011-12. This appeal has been reinstituted under the direction of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of Lucknow Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.101/2016 dated 06/02/2017