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)

disallowing 10% of the total purchases, such addition being contrary to provisions of law, the addition made be deleted, the assessment be quashed.” 2. The facts of the case are, that in this case, an original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 9.12.2019 on a total returned income of Rs.33,76,700/-. Subsequently, an order under section

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the\nextent of Rs.6

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making assessment u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 as cash was deposited in the bank out of amount received from close relatives for the purpose of land purchase, therefore cash deposited out of amount received from close relatives and friends for the purpose

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

section 148A r/w sec 148. 12. That the CIT Appeals Faceless has erred in law and on facts by invoking sec 69A ignoring the fact that the assessment was completed by addition of amount not belonging to Appellant nor was he the owner thereof but the real owner was a third person Smt Geeta Awasthi. But the ownership

PROP. R K AGENCIES KHUTAR ROAD GOLA GOKARAN NATH DISTT LAKHIMPUR KHERI,GOLA GOKARAN NATH DISTT KHERI vs. PROP., ITO LAKHIMPUR KHEI UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Priyanka Tiwari V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) Prop. R. K. Agencies Lakhimpur Khutar Road, Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Amept3933B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R.

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, whereas the Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) has disallowed the addition as per the provision

VIKAS SINGH ,PILIBHIT vs. ITO, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

69A, thereby bring it to tax under the special provisions of section 115BBE. Besides this, he also made a disallowance

RAJEEV JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILY vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajeev Jaiswal & Others V. Assessment Unit (Nfac), 72,Newada Sheikhan, Income Tax Department Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001 Pan:Aaqfr4268R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2024 O R D E R

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Act. Further, during

ARUN KUMAR TANDON,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arun Kumar Tandon V. Ito-4(1) Rama Niwas Lucknow New 15, A.P. Sen Road Charbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acept6448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

69A of the Act : Rs.24,73,500/- Assessed income : Rs.31,42,100/- 2.3 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee after duly considering the submissions of the assessee

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs. 2,39,002/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that the bad debts written off could be allowed provided it had been written off under section 36(2). He, therefore, directed the AO to call for the earlier year’s records to ascertain whether this amount had been added in earlier years

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- out of total addition of Rs.14,06,000/-\ndonation of Rs.9,00,000/- paid to Ram JanamBhumiRs.8,06,000/- allowed part relief

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

69A, the provisions of section 115BBE will not be applicable.” As regards the addition of Rs. 2,48,16,616/- made on account of charging of the excess rate over and above the prevailing market rate the said amount too, forms part of the total sales declared by the assessee, there should be no reason for the department to frown

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

69A, the provisions of section 115BBE will not be applicable.” As regards the addition of Rs. 2,48,16,616/- made on account of charging of the excess rate over and above the prevailing market rate the said amount too, forms part of the total sales declared by the assessee, there should be no reason for the department to frown

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

69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as Id.CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act when the books of accounts have already been rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Id.AO has erred in rejecting the books of account without issuance

BALJEET SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 13/08/20225, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel

SUNHARI LAL YADAV,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunhari Lal Yadav V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4) 5, Meerpur Cantt, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerpur, Pin-208001. Kanpur-208001. Tan/Pan:Abepy8185F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Dr O R D E R

69A of the Act, without properly appreciating the appellant’s submission that the Said bank account does not pertain to the appellant and is in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi, with PAN: AFWPD8903Q That the appellant Submitted the “Certificate” from the “State Bank of India” stating that the Bank Account is not in the name of the appellant which

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

69A in respect of on-money receipts, however, said order was set aside by Tribunal holding that AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of on- money receipts and said view was also confirmed by High Court, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\non provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- out of total addition of Rs.14,06,000/- out\nof donation deduction u/s 80G to the extent of extent of Rs.6

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- out of total addition of Rs.6,00,000/- out\nof total addition of Rs.14,06,000/- sustained addition of Rs.6