INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

condone the delay in filing the appeals and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has raised long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which were manipulated with the help of certain

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

SHAFI AHAMED,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Shafi Ahamed V. The Acit 133/194 ‘O’ Block Central Circle 1 Sabzi Mandi Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Alhpa0988P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

undisclosed income are not applicable, the addition made be deleted. 03. THAT the AO as well as CIT(A) have failed, applying a commission rate of 1% on total turnover made in the bank treating it to be business income without appreciating the facts, the turnover as total credited amount of bank account is not genuine and estimated the amount

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

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

undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with 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

ARIF MUNIR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-(2)(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

undisclosed income and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer without any base. D. Because the appellant is relying on the judgment of Delhi High court in The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi Vs Hersh Washesher Chadha, ΙΤΑ 676/2023, in which if respondent/assesse had given specific explanation about the money and the record of the unexplained

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)

undisclosed Income of the Assessee Company, hence the Reasons do not meet the requirement of Law and are invalid and subsequent Assessment Proceedings are also invalid. (6) That the Lower Authorities failed to appreciate that there was a reasonable cause for non compliance of notice u/s 148 and subsequent assessment passed

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Class IV Government employee, working in the Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file return of income, as his income was below the taxable limit. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As per information available with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

delay was condoned and Learned D. R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned D. R. submitted that in this case the assessee had issued share capital to four companies at a premium and had forfeited the share application money and therefore, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain and on examination of the explanation, the Assessing

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

undisclosed income as per Section 68/69A of the Act and therefore Section 115BBE is not applicable in this case. It is requested to place the reply and submission on record and take the necessary action to complete the case or ask if any other information or explanation is required to close the case. Thanking You. Divesh Kumar PAN CFDPK1712F Date

SHRI NARENDRA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Narendra Singh V. The Ito 1(2) C-170, Nirala Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bjpps7004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 06 2022 O R D E R

undisclosed income of the assessee. Hearing in the matter could not be attended due to ill health of assessee. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts as, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to take into

KAMLA VERMA,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(2)(2), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamla Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 185/7, Vijay Nagar Ward 1(2)(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akcpv2921K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the ITA No.364/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 8 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,44,430/- after making an addition

CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(2), HARDOI-1

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Cane Development V. The Income Tax Officer Council Range 3 (2) C/O Ayyubi Chambers Hardoi Raniganj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaalc0292N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

undisclosed income. 5. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the Assessee is Fund Management Body of the State Government established by an Order passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., without any right of absolute ownership over the funds placed at its disposal. For the road construction and development work also belongs

SHRI JITESH KUMAR SONKAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Jitesh Kumar Sonkar V. The Income Tax Officer – 3(2) 7-A, Sabji Mandi Lucknow Sitapur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Asyps1555Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.D. Chopra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

undisclosed source and the same was added to the income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs.14,75,910/- under various heads. As per the AO, since the assessee had failed to produce the books of account, bills and vouchers for verification

KAMRAN ZUBAIR,KANPUR vs. THE AO CIRCLE-1(2)(1),, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamran Zubair V. The Assessing Officer 112/349-D, Swaroop Nagar Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaepz7118E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO accordingly completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.42,76,110/-. 3. The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

VISHAN CHANDRA GUPTA S/O SALIG RAM 56-LAJPAT NAGAR, KARAMCHARI NAGAR BAREILLY-243001,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Vishan Chandra Gupta V. Income Tax Officer S/O Salig Ram, Ward 1(1) 56, Lajpat Nagar Bareilly Karamchari Marg Bareilly Tan/Pan:Anhpg7000J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 12.07.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,61,210/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Air Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,90,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Assessing

undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was ITA No.173/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 7 migrated to the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee

ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,JHINJHAK KANPUR DEHAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

undisclosed business income beyond the declared commission, based solely on the ITA No.489/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 8 volume of debit and credit transactions in a current account. The account was used to facilitate operational fund flows linked to telecom recharges handled on behalf of the telecom company, not for conducting independent business. The AO ignores the actual business model

MUKESH SHARMA,JAGANNAT GANJ, BISWAN SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshramukesh Sharma V. Ito 30 Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur-261201. Sitapur-261201. Pan:Aweps9987J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

undisclosed. Thus the order passed is against the principle of natural Justice. Ground 5. The assessee reserves the right to add amend AMD DLALTE any of the shove grounds of appeal.” (A.1) In this case assessment order dated 30.03.2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby