JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

search and seizure operation, so, the appeal could not be filed on time. 4. On examination, I find that the affidavit dated 18/02/2019 for condonation of delay

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

search and seizure operation, so, the appeal could not be filed on time. 4. On examination, I find that the affidavit dated 18/02/2019 for condonation of delay

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee company on 20.03.2002. Proceedings for the assessment of the assessee’s income for the block period ending 20.03.2002, were initiated by issue of notice under section 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response, the assessee filed a return of income

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

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

condonation of delay in filing First Appeal. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) is violative of the principles of natural justice and without considering the peculiar facts of the case and grievous loss caused to the Appellant on account of technical errors. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing the period of delay in filing First

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

RASHEEDA MEMORIAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Rasheeda Memorial Trust V. The Cit (Exemption) Flat No.501, 4Th Floor Lucknow Ashoka Apartment Kaiserbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aactr8980N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 08 2022 O R D E R

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, stating therein that the impugned order of Ld. C.I.T. (Exemption) was received on 30.12.2017 by the main Trustee of the assessee Trust, Shri Mohd. Saleem, who was looking after the affairs of the Trust and taxation matters; that however, due to Search and Seizure

G.S.EXPRESS PVT.LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

Seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the business and residential premises of the G.S. Group on 1.02.2018. Several documents were seized during the course of the search. Subsequent to the search, the assessee was asked to file a return of income by 31.10.2018, but it filed its return belatedly

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. PATEL PAN PRODUCTS LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Gd Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Range-V M/S. Patel Pan Products V. Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Ltd. Lucknow-226001. 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Lucknow-226002. Pan: Adypa2513M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 09/Lkw/2019 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 736/Lkw/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Patel Pan Products Ltd. V. Acit, Range-V 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226002. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaecp0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kappor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

seizure action, as the same has been surrendered by Shri K. N. Singh Patel and the assessment has been made in this case. Therefore, double addition cannot be made, hence, the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of extra stock is hereby deleted and appeal is allowed.” 13. At the time of hearing before us, we find that

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 14 INDEX ********** SIR, RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY (PAN-ATIPP6520B) 1. Copy of ITR along with Computation

HALWASIYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 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 Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company was assessed under section 143(3) for the A.Y. 2012-13 by the ld. ACIT-3, Lucknow vide order dated 30.03.2015. Subsequently, a search and seizure

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice