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

house property”. (v) Besides, being the demonetization assessment year, the AO was required to examine the genuineness of the source of the cash deposits

RAM NATH JAISWAL,FAIZABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while the Stay application is held to be allowed

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

deposits in the said account were to the tune of Rs. 1,28,67,831/- while cash withdrawals amounted to Rs. 56,25,000/- . Allowing the assessee the benefit of the withdrawals, he held that the balance of Rs. 72,42,831/- was unexplained. The ld. AO also pointed out that the cash withdrawal of Rs. 62,25,000/- from

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

cash deposit is not from books. The addition u/s 68 can be made only for credit entries from the books of account. 4. The learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the quantum of sales claimed by the Appellant was also supported purchases, stock, VAT Return, audit report etc. 5. The order of the learned Assessing

URMILA MISHRA,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Urmila Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer E-1/186, Kda Colony Ward 1(1)(5) Dheli Sujanpur, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Bndpm1858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

house property at Rs.4,91,628/- and income from other sources at Rs.26,933/-. After initially processing of the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for the reason of – (1) large investment in property and (2) large value of cash deposits

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

property, whereas in the present case, the issue relates to cash deposits in the Savings Bank account of the assessee. Likewise, as per the ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the case of ‘Smt. Billo vs. ITO’ (surpa), the reason for reopening recorded by the Assessing Officer is different, inasmuch as in the present case, the bank details, such

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

cash as money deposit of Rs.27,00,000 in the Appellant s bank account was to be utilized for the purposes of purchasing the house property

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

property A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 held in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the same was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of assessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the registration of the assessee had been cancelled

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

house property and from other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, while going through the bank statements, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee had made cash deposits

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

deposit . Actual Facts: The cash transaction referenced above is associated with Bank Account Number 10540400000959 at the Bank of Baroda, Sandila Branch, located in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. It is important note that this account does not belong to the Appellant. Rather, it is the account of Sankosh Kumar Mahavidyalaya Samiti, which holds the PAN AAEAS2255E. We have included a bank

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

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

property\nheld in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the\nsame was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of\nassessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the\nregistration of the assessee had been cancelled but once the registration had been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

deposits in the bank account and the cash expenditures during the year have been deducted therefrom, giving the balance figure as the closing cash in hand as on 31st March, 2019, which ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 20 of 28 tallies with the cash in hand as declared in the balance sheet filed by the assessee. No defect has been

LUCKNOW EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

deposits in cash of Rs. 3,35,000/- in the two bank accounts of the assessee. The ld. AO after conducting extensive enquiries had accepted sources of investment into the said immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 49,79,813/- and only made an addition of Rs. 11,45,007/-. The assessee had filed an appeal against this addition

SANGEETA PANDEY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(4),, LUCKNOW-NEW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer House No.88, Majra Andandlok-Ii Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bqepp1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income. The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Various Details Required For Completing The Assessment. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao, Therefore, Proceeded To Complete The Assessment Under

House No.88, Majra Andandlok-II Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow TAN/PAN:BQEPP1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 02 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated

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

property for Rs.66,00,000/-, did not draw any adverse inference. However, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee regarding the cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed

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

house property Rs.92,447/-, also disallowed deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs.1,50,000/- and also addition of cash deposited

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

deposits and Rs. 29,91,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. However, the ld. CIT(A) records that he issued four notices to the assessee but the assessee did not respond to any of them. In view of the same

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash in hand are physically verified by the proprietor of the firm. Fixed Assets as shown in the balance sheet are subject to verification. Details of TDS deducted and deposited could not be verified due to non- availability of receipts and challans. However, the assessee is liable for deduction of tax. The assessee did not provide information regarding deductions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

cash in hand are physically verified by the proprietor of the firm. Fixed Assets as shown in the balance sheet are subject to verification. Details of TDS deducted and deposited could not be verified due to non- availability of receipts and challans. However, the assessee is liable for deduction of tax. The assessee did not provide information regarding deductions