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

unexplained investment by an order dt. 28/03/2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforestated order of assessment, the assessee instituted an appeal before first appellate authority on 18/11/2022 admittedly with a delay of 235 days after the expiry of statutory period, which the Ld. NFAC dismissed recording the following findings; ITAT-Lucknow

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

unexplained investment by an order dt. 28/03/2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforestated order of assessment, the assessee instituted an appeal before first appellate authority on 18/11/2022 admittedly with a delay of 235 days after the expiry of statutory period, which the Ld. NFAC dismissed recording the following findings; ITAT-Lucknow

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

investments as per Annexure D-1 and D-2 which were papers found from the possession of Shri Heera Lal Jain and finally, an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash found from the possession of Shri Heera Lal Jain. Thus, the total undisclosed income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5

KAVITA ARORA,LUCKNOW vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. The ld. AR, at the outset submitted that he will not be pressing Ground No.1 in all the three appeals, therefore, the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Coming to Ground No.2 in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee

KAVITA ARORA,LUCKNOW vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. The ld. AR, at the outset submitted that he will not be pressing Ground No.1 in all the three appeals, therefore, the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Coming to Ground No.2 in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee

KAVITA ARORA,LUCKNOW vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. The ld. AR, at the outset submitted that he will not be pressing Ground No.1 in all the three appeals, therefore, the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Coming to Ground No.2 in ITA No. 28/Lkw/2022, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee

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

KOBSAI HOSPITALLITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing the appeal on this count and also requested permission to furnish the necessary evidences to prove that the investment in the property was out of legitimate sources. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept A.Y. 2013-14 Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. the plea of the assessee. He held that it was for the assessee

KOBSAI HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing the appeal on this count and also requested permission to furnish the necessary evidences to prove that the investment in the property was out of legitimate sources. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept A.Y. 2013-14 Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. the plea of the assessee. He held that it was for the assessee

ASHOK KUMAR RAJA,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4),, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraashok Kumar Raja V. Ito-2(4) Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit- Pilibhit, U.P. 262001. Pan:Alppr2326G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

unexplained investment but the fact is that cash was deposited as well as withdrawn for agriculture purpose. 5. That notices had been issued on several dates but the appellant was unable to reply those notices as the notices were issued on his temporary address and he was not aware of e-mail and portal. 6. That if the appellant

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

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

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

unexplained investments and disallowed agricultural income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. The assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence for the deposits and agricultural income.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, 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 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

unexplained i) Disclosing sources of investment ii) Expressing readiness to furnish evidence iii) Seeking opportunity to clarify iv) Supporting documents are in possession The additions are de hors the material record and unsustainable [CIT v. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] on Orissa Corp. (P) ITA No.505/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 9 13. BECAUSE, the appellant craves leave to file another

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

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, 1961. 6. Because the order of the Learned office National faceless Assessment centre, is without any merits and based on conjuncture and surmises and this should cancel and the income returned should be accepted. 7. Because no proper reason have been forwarded by the Learned Assessing Officer before making the said additions

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

investment. it is requested to complete assessment on basis of documents produced and available on record....." 2.3 The assessee had also furnished before the AO the copies of letters received from the lenders. The AO found that there were increase in unsecured loan totaling to Rs.33,61,040/-. As per AO, since the assessee had failed to furnish the details

KAFEEL AHMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, apropos to the grounds of appeal, contended that in this case, the assessment has been framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) as the assessee was unable to effectively represent

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

ASHISH KUMAR,SHRAVASTI vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, 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 31.01.2024, 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 Had Not Filed His 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.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

unexplained investment and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,50,000/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty