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

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

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

unexplained money under sec 69A. ITA No.06/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 8 E. Because the learned C.I.T.(A) rejected the rectification application dated 05/12/2024 without application of mind stating that authority has no power to review its own while in the whole rectification application the prayer was only rectify the mistake apparent from record not of review. F. Because the rectification

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)

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 and Loss Account, hence the present addition of Rs. 5,60,64,577/- is invalid. (9) That additions upheld is highly excessive, contrary

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.”

unexplained money under section 69A. He, therefore, brought the same to tax @ 60% under section 115BBE. He also added back the interest received on these deposits of Rs. 15,797/- as income from other sources. Subsequently, the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act and issued a show cause notice. The assessee

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

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 article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books Of account, if any, maintained

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

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

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

DHARAMVEER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate 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 money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in adding back to the total income of the appellant/ assessee. 4. That Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as in facts in levying the highest tax u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the on the facts and in the circumstances Assessing Officer has erred

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

DR. R.M. LOHIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,LUCKNOW vs. 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)

condoning the delay in the given facts of the case, we admit the appeal for consideration. 3 Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences A.Y. 2019-20 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 under section

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

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

money of the assessee and was added to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 2.1 From the aforesaid bank statements, the AO also noticed that the assessee had made deposits of Rs.63,244/- other than cash in its bank account No.50285540277 maintained with Allahabad Bank, Lakhimpur Kheri and of Rs.7,21,250/- in its bank

SARALA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Sarala Singh V. Income Tax Officer 4(3) 567/206A, Old Jail Road Lucknow Anand Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Cqfbs2682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 01 2025 O R D E R

unexplained money u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961. ITA No.794/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 6 4. That the NFAC erred against fact and circumstances of the case in confirming that the assessing officer was not justified in applying the provisions of section u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961 and ignoring the fact that the appellant had received cash gift

RAVI KANT SHARMA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. BECAUSE based on the information and material available on record, the Bank of Baroda (A/c No.: 26730400007999), in which the cash deposits amounting to Rs.24,44,100/- are alleged to be appearing, is neither owned by the "appellant" nor the said bank account belongs to the "appellant" and consequently

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

unexplained money AMD levied the tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act even though the assessee duly declared income u/s 44AE at Rs. 90,000/- Ground 3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the presumptive taxation scheme, 3 opted by the appellant i.e., special provisions of section 44AB

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

unexplained money, by arbitrarily rejecting an exhaustive, valid and legitimate explanation tendered by the assessee before the Ld. AO. The all the transactions are recorded in its books of account and is evidenced through banking transactions. Thus, the addition has been sustained on material and whimsically. 5. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MIRAJ AHMAD,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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 is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. In the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings and passed assessment order

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