INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 4 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which

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)

Cash Credit Bank Account being Deposit of Sale Proceeds of Gold and Silver Jewellery and Ornaments during the year on different dates as unexplained money u/s 69A of I. T. Act without appreciating that these Sale Proceeds duly disclosed in the ITR at Rs. 11,03,94,034/- along with Tax Audit Report and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit

LAXMI DUTT BHATT,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B 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: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.03.2011, declaring total income of Rs.2,84,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,25,000/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Gupta V. Ito-2(1) 69/192, Chitvapur Lucknow Station Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akcpg5937A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

unexplained cash credit u/s 69A resulting in levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, failing thereby to treat the amount as part of business turnover of Rs.52,82,566 assessed u/s 44 AD of the I.T. Act. The addition of Rs.13,58,000 is not justified at all and liable to be deleted as such. 2. That

ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anoop Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer Patel Nagar Ward 5(4) Fatehpur, Barabanki Barabanki-1 Tan/Pan:Ahtpg8238Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed at special rate under the provision of section 115BBE is all contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 281 days in filing the ITA No.212/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6 appeal before the Tribunal. He further

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

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

credit sales to the farmers. In these circumstances it would be fair to say that the source of money under consideration remains unexplained and hence provision of section 69A attracts. Extracts of section 69A is reproduced here under: “69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

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

BHARTIYA JAN SEWA ASHRAM,JAUNPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in\nfiling of the said appeal. After considering the facts mentioned in\nthe condonation petition and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the matter, the appeal is held to be filed in time and is\naccordingly taken up for adjudication.\n\n3.\nThe facts of the case are that the assessee society filed a\nreturn

MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

cash deposits during the demonetization. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded ex parte to the assessee and assessed income at Rs.71,92,000/- making two additions, i.e. the amount deposited

SATYA KUMAR DARBARI,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Satya Kumar Darbari V. The Dcit 381, Rajendra Nagar Range 4 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,29,290/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made u/s 69C of the Act on account of commission alleged to have been paid for obtaining the unsecured loans of Rs.2,24,00,000/-; and ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made u/s 69C of the Act on account of commission alleged to have been paid for obtaining the unsecured loans of Rs.2,24,00,000/-; and ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made u/s 69C of the Act on account of commission alleged to have been paid for obtaining the unsecured loans of Rs.2,24,00,000/-; and ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made

ATHLETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

unexplained cash credits and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,54,100/-. 2.1 The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

MR. ADITYA KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2017-18 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), 1, Anora, Amausi, Lucknow Lucknow-226008 Pan Bfapok 7298L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Siddharth Kohli, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

cash credits/ unexplained money ignoring the sale deeds effected during the financial year 2016-17. 3 3. That the A.O. grossly erred in adding back Rs.3252800/- u/s 50C and at the same time resorting to application of provisions of Section 115BBE thus confusing the entire transaction which in facts was simply a clear cut case of 'Capital Gains and ought

HARIDAS,PILIBHIT vs. ITO RANGE-2(4), PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Haridas V. The Income Tax Officer 418, Amaria, Sitarganj Marg Range 2(4) Pilibhit (U.P) Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Apqph6916R (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: 13 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.01.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Air Information Received In The Office Of The Income Tax Department, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited A Sum Of Rs.12,01,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao

unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before 3. the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders passed by the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That Authorities below

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

MY STYLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(5) LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Cash receipts against goods delivery are trade advances, not unexplained credits. 6. Violation of Natural Justice : The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order without independent inquiry or due consideration of the Appellant's submissions, violating principles of natural justice (Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT [2008J 169 Taxman 328 (SC).” (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond