PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

demonetization in assessee's bank accounts treated as unexplained. It is prayed that the disallowance u/s 68 is uncalled for and hence

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

demonetization period had rightly been added back to the income of the assessee. On the disallowance of expenditure to the extent

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

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

demonetization period had rightly been added back to the\nincome of the assessee. On the disallowance of expenditure to the extent

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow the same under section 40A(3) of the Act and asked the assessee to show cause. 3. The ld. AO thereafter records the fact that the assessee made a satisfactory response to the cash deposit of Rs. 49,16,000/- in specified bank notes during demonetization

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

demonetization period to account for cash sales. The Assessing Officer\nmade no effort to ascertain whether any purchases recorded by the\nassessee attracted disallowance

SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kumar Gupta V. The Dcit-6 314/30, Mirza Mandi Lucknow Chowk, Lucknow Pan:Adgpg1431J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2024 O R D E R

demonetization period, computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,89,594/-, making addition of Rs.1,05,68,000/- under section 68 of the Act, disallowances

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Disallowance u/s. 40A(7) of the Act Rs.1,78,33,990/- in respect of difference in provision for payment of gratuity. 4. Unexplained cash deposits during Rs.7,59,42,681/- the demonetization

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization period due to sales credited to its books of account to the extent unsupported by past trend. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

RANJANA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(3), LUCKNOW-NEW

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

demonetization period generated out of business proceeds in regular course of business, having already been credited to revenue. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adhoc disallowances

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowed a sum of Rs. 15,04,028/- claimed towards cost of improvement, in the absence of any supporting documents. With regard to the deposit of cash, the assessee replied that the information regarding cash deposited during the demonetization

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income-tax Act and computing tax liability on the same u/s 115BBE of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

ACIT, LUCKNOW vs. MALLICS JEWELS, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed such sale transactions of that day.” 7. AO has correctly figure out that such so called "sales is nothing but attempt of colouring unexplained cash credit of assessee into his books of account which had otherwise remained out of books in absence of demonetization

RANJEET SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit / Acit-4, 459, Ameer Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226004 Pan: Afsps0877G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed On 21.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding An Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period As Unexplained, The Same Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 02. Because The Entire Cash Deposited In Bank Is Part Of The Sale Proceeds & Realization Of Debts, The Addition Made Is Purely On Suspicions & Surmises, Such Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 03. Because There Being No Change In The Method Of Accounting Regularly Followed By The Assessee & The Same Having Being Consistently Accepted, The Books Of Account Having Not Been Rejected, The Stock Tally Not Disputed, The Accounts Being Tax Audited, There Was No Reason For The Ao To Disbelieve The Cash Deposited In The Bank Treating The Same As Unexplained, The Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 04. Because The Amount Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank Being Part Of Sale Proceeds & Cash Receipts Already Charged To Revenue For The Purposes Of Computation Of Income, Separate Addition Of The Same Has Resulted Into Double Taxation, Not Permitted By Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

disallowances made is bad in law, be quashed.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.19,04,680/- . The case was taken up for scrutiny for examining the issue of, “abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetization

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

disallowing part of the salary paid by the assessee to persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: - Page 3 of 35 Page 4 of 35 Page 5 of 35 Page 6 of 35 Page 7 of 35 (B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid additions

SITA RAM RASTOGI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5),, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

demonetization period and was illegally accepted by the assessee. 17. In ‘ACIT vs. M/s Hirapanna Jewellers’ (supra), on an identical issue, the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, held that the cash receipts represent the sales which the Page 10 of 11 assessee therein had rightly offered for taxation

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

demonetization period. It explained its difficulties by pointing out that it had sent follow up letter to all the depots and family bazars but not received replies and therefore, was unable to furnish the details. It furnished copies of purchase ledgers, discount, salary, allowance benefits and wages paid during the year, VAT paid, mandi A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI PANKAJ VERMA, LUCKNOW

In the result, I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2020 is partly allowed while I

demonetization times and these were no ordinary or normal\ntime. The learned CIT(A) held that there can be various reasons for the\nmismatch in the alleged average. Further she noted that the assessee had\nclaimed that these deposits were made out of the realization from the\ndebtors. These debtors were the assessee's regular customers who had\nrunning ledger

SHRI PANKAJ VERMA,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2020 is partly allowed while I

demonetization times and these were no ordinary or normal\ntime. The learned CIT(A) held that there can be various reasons for the\nmismatch in the alleged average. Further she noted that the assessee had\nclaimed that these deposits were made out of the realization from the\ndebtors. These debtors were the assessee's regular customers who had\nrunning ledger