MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Dwivedi V. Ito-3(2) 254, Chandralok Lucknow - New Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afgpd1753C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 02 2025 O R D E R

133(6) of the Act to M/s Samadhan India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Abhisht Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., requiring them to explain in which capacity Shri Manoj Dwivedi was related to their Companies and confirm whether the aforesaid amounts have been taxed in their Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2017-18. However, there was no response from the side

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 29/03/2015 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short), u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1

RAVI KANT SHARMA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to Bank of Baroda, Bareilly, which furnished the bank account statement of the assessee for the relevant period, confirming deposits of Rs.24,44,100/-. Since the assessee had failed to respond to the statutory notices issued by the AO and furnish any explanation about the nature and source

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

133(6) of the Act to the Indian Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. During the enquiry, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had another bank account, bearing No.964234308 with the same bank, in which the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.2,56,000/- during the demonetization period. Thus, there was a total cash deposit of Rs.14

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW vs. SHRI JAI SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed by Revenue stating the following reasons: “Due to nationwide situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and further in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 by taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Moto Writ Petition

MR. JAI SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, RANGE-2(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed by Revenue stating the following reasons: “Due to nationwide situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and further in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 by taking cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Moto Writ Petition

SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI/ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca 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 29.05.2024, 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 Was Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. 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 Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). As per the details furnished by the banks, the sum of the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period, i.e., from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 was Rs.20,11,500/-. Out of the total cash deposits of Rs.20,11,500/-, Rs.12,87,500/- was treated as unexplained

KARAN SINGH,UNNAO vs. ITO-2(4), UNNAO

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Karan Singh V. Ito-2(4) 496, Hiran Nagar Unnao _ New Unnao, Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aqwpls6478L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.09.2020, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-01, Lucknow (Ld. Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had E- Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,47,580/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.10,00,000/- In Old Sbns (Specified Bank Notes) On 15.11.2016 In His Bank Account No.010010100010068 With Aryavart Bank. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Along With A Questionnaire.

133(6) of the Act. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, giving last opportunity to the assessee to submit his explanation. Since, again, there was no compliance by the assessee, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,47,580/-, treating

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

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

133(6) of the Act, from which it was found that a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- was deposited during the period of demonetization, out of which Rs.10,51,000/- were in Specified Bank notes (SBNs). The AO held that as the sale and purchase were not allowed in SBNs during the demonetization period, the cash deposits of Rs.10

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

133(6) of the Act, as per which the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.16,17,000/- in its bank account No.50285540277 maintained with Allahabad Bank, Lakhimpur Kheri during the year under consideration. Since no document had been filed by the assessee regarding the source of these deposits, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee

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

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The appellant assessee\nhas filed application for condonation of delay. The application for\ncondonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee.\nThe Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not\nexpress any objection to the delay being condoned. Being\nsatisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking\ncondonation of delay

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer – 5(5) Sumerganj Dharauli Ram Barabanki - 2 Sanehi Ghat Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajnpj8871G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baorda, Bhitana Branch, Barabanki and obtained all necessary documents along with bank statement relating to the bank accounts of the assessee. From the reply received from the Bank of Baroda, the AO noticed that the assessee was a Business Correspondent of Bank

DHIRENDRA PRATAP,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), WARD-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (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 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) on 04.01.2018, requiring the assessee to furnish the source of cash deposits along with other evidentiary proof, in response to which the assessee filed reply on 07.02.2018. Since ITA No.467/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 7 the AO was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee, he reopened

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

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

133(6) of the Act was called for from the Commercial Tax Department (Government of U.P.) vide order dated 18/12/2010. It was stated that the business premises of the assessee company was surveyed on 22/11/2007 and 27/10/2009 by the Commercial Tax Department. Several discrepancies in the stock, sale and purchases were fund. According to the Ld. DR, the demand

HAJARIA SOFT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.74/Lkw/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajaria Soft Services Pvt Ltd Income Tax Officer-3(2) V. A-1462, Sec-1, Lda Colony, Lucknow-New Kanpur Road Ashiyana, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226012. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aadch6101R अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. (2.1) In this case, assessment order dated 13/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.38,74,773/- as against returned income of Rs.12,77,260/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition

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 of Rs.2,65,51,250/- with Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank

ASHOKA MINERALS,KANPUR DEHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

delay was prayed to be condoned. After considering that the fact that the assessee may have been handicapped in effectively pursuing its appeal on account of the illness of the counsel at that particular point of time, in the interest of justice, we admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the case