DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

69A of the Act, therefore, no interference is required. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 16.02.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section

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

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

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, Page 2 of 8 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1,12,64,409/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.1,09,47,800/- was made on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee filed appeal

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of delay. Further, he contended that the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Ayaz Ahmad Ayyubi, who was solely handling the assessee’s case, was suffering from a terminal disease during the relevant period. He further contended that since there was no taxable income, the assessee had not filed the return of income. However, in response to the notice

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.”

69A of the Act, thus section 271AAC (1) of the Act was applicable and he accordingly proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 62,701/- on the assessee, being 10% of the tax payable under section 115BBE. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. NFAC on 28.08.2022. On 28.08.2022, the ld. CIT(A) found

NITYANAND,SANT KABIR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI, BASTI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca 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 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. 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 To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

section 69A can be made when books of account was not maintained by the Appellant. ITA No.470/LKW/2025 Page 7 of 9 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated

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

section 69A under which addition made is not applicable. 07. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in fact and in law in making the assessment order without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard. 08. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in interest calculation as interest should not be calculated u/s 234A and 234B of Income

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

section 69A of Income-tax Act, 1961, cash deposited in Bank Rs.1,00,000/- out of past savings, Rs.3,13,816/- received from Mr. O.P. Yadav as advance against sale of plot and Rs.12,44,000/- received as cash marriage gifts on the occasion of marriage from various persons. The addition made without considering the nature of receipt of income

M/S K.N.S. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, 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)

delay in this regard is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the Company e-filed its return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring a total income at (-) Rs.2,18,896/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 on the grounds that on the insight portal, there was information that the assessee had maintained

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

sections 271AAC and 272A(2)(e) of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.6 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because on the facts

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

69A of Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That Ld. authorities below have erred in law as well as on in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 6. None was present for the assessee when the appeal

DEVI DUTT AGARWAL,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SITAPUR NEW, SITAPUR

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)

69A deserves to be deleted. 3- The addition has been made arbitrarily by the Learned Assessing Officer. The addition made under this head is against the law. 4- That the Learned Assessing Officer had erred in ignoring the reply submitted and thus had erred by invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1 Devi Dutt

KAMLESH ,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE -4(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act is baseless, against the facts, illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. That the appellant reserves right to modify and or add any other ground or grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify. 7. That the assessment upheld by Ld. Lower authority is highly excessive

GOBIND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARABANKI vs. DCIT/ACIT-3,LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29/10/2017 declaring total income at Rs.41,10,830/-. In the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings

ANIS AHMAD,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anis Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer 95/91, Ameen Ganj Ward 1(3)(1) Parade, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aozpa6913K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this case, the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12.03.2018, wherein the assessee was required to prepare the true and correct return of income for the captioned assessment year