ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during the demonetization

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

demonetization period\". Yet, despite\nthese red flags, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the\nassessee on face value.\n\n(F.1.1) We have given due consideration to a couple of orders of Hon'ble\nHigh Courts, to which our attention was invited. Firstly, we have considered\nthe order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Delhi Airport

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

demonetization period as inflated cash balance in cash book appears to fail the tests of both genuineness and human probabilities. The AO should have placed is reliance-on. The case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (214 ITR 801) wherein the Apex court. propounded the principle of human probabilities and applying it in that case held that whether apparent is real

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

demonetization period, which was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24/12/2019 (DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023014004(1)). after due verification of various documents and replies submitted by the appellant.\n\n1. During the said original assessment proceedings, the appellant duly submitted the source of all cash deposits made during the year. The appellant also submitted

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. SHRI SACHIT KUMAR AGARWAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is sustained, and\nthe appeal is dismissed

demonetization on 08.11.2016.To substantiate the\nsaid facts, copy of cash book for the period 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 is\nenclosed. So, it would be completely wrong to even assume that the\nappellant earned higher rate of G.P. than what is recorded in the\nPage 7 of 16\naudited books of accounts. The comparison of G.P. Rate of year under\nconsideration with

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

demonetization period.\nii) AO did not enquire about the details of license issued to him for the\ntrading of liquor.\niii) AO did not examine about genuineness and creditworthiness of the\npersons who had id given given unsecured unsecured loans of Rs.2.99\ncrores to the assessee. Further, no enquiry were made by the AO\nregarding the genuineness and correctness