VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

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

condonation of delay occurred in instituting the appeal before Ld. first appellate authority and request seeking remand of matters therefore and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1983 perused the material placed on record. We note that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed on 28/03/2022 & whereas penalty u/s 271AAC

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

condonation of delay occurred in instituting the appeal before Ld. first appellate authority and request seeking remand of matters therefore and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1983 perused the material placed on record. We note that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed on 28/03/2022 & whereas penalty u/s 271AAC

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, along with penalty u/s 271AAC(1) This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances along with

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal. The appeal is admitted for decision of merits. 3. In this case, the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B

SANJAY KUMAR,NIGHASAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC), AO ASSESSMENT UNIT(NFAC), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Kumar V. The Ito (Nfac) 230, Khairi Garh Assessment Unit Nighasan New Delhi Kheri Pan:Fsmpk7383H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Kumar (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 06 2024 O R D E R

delay of 107 days was not condoned by Ld. CIT(A) even after having valid concrete grounds based on genuine hardship of the assessee which have been produced before the competent authority. ITA No.135/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 (2) As the facts of the case are still unheard to the appellate authority and the department has imposed huge demand

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

MOQEETUR RAHMAN KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, 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, assessment order dated 28.04.2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B

RANDHEER SINGH,FAIZABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

144B of the I.T.Act, 1961 without serving on the assessee the mandatory notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961dated 28-03-2021and therefore the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed as illegal. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily upholding the addition

NOMAN HUSSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 144B of the Act and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.2,34,00,608/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the assessment order. However, since the appeal before the NFAC had been filed belatedly and there was a delay of 256 days, the NFAC did not admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024

NOMAN HUSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 144B of the Act and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.2,34,00,608/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the assessment order. However, since the appeal before the NFAC had been filed belatedly and there was a delay of 256 days, the NFAC did not admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024

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

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 (C) In this case, the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,77,68,734/- as against

KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. (B) In this case, assessment order dated 28.03.2022 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B

SHUBHANSHU AGARWAL,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.82,10,518/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC

SIDDHARTH SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Singh V. The Ito 1(1) 43/S-3, Greater Green Park Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Frhps5158G (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

144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.43,76,752/-. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the Ld. NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason

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

144B of the Act, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.14,36,500/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (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 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

144B of the Act read with section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income particulars Amount Returned Income Rs.54,030/- Addition of difference in closing Rs.13,17,919/- stock valuation Addition on account of unexplained Rs.33,61,040/- loan u/s. 68 of the Act Total assessed income Rs.47