SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, the said order deserves to be held as illegal being wholly without jurisdiction. 11. BECAUSE the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow-1, exercising his revisionary jurisdiction reopened the assessment on the following issues: i) receipt of rental income from house property at Rs.26,49

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

section 145(3) of the Act, \nwithout appreciating the fact that the trading results shown by the assessee \nwere found open to verification and were unreliable. \n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unsold investment in \nconstruction of building

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 145(3) of the Act, without appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were found open to verification and were unreliable. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of building at 192/2, Civil

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

Section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unexplainad investment in\nconstruction of building of 19/2

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

section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unexplainned investment in\nconstruction of building of 19/2

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

house properties. The detail of compliance made during assessment proceeding is as under: AY 2014-15 Reply dt. Page of PB Description Remarks 11-05-2023 48 General 05-09-2023 49 General 08-02-2024 50-52 General Bank Statement, Turnover reconciliation 26-02-2024 SCN issued NP Rate applied @11% not mentioned

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

house properties. The detail of compliance made during assessment proceeding is as under: AY 2014-15 Reply dt. Page of PB Description Remarks 11-05-2023 48 General 05-09-2023 49 General 08-02-2024 50-52 General Bank Statement, Turnover reconciliation 26-02-2024 SCN issued NP Rate applied @11% not mentioned

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

house properties. The detail of compliance made during assessment proceeding is as under: AY 2014-15 Reply dt. Page of PB Description Remarks 11-05-2023 48 General 05-09-2023 49 General 08-02-2024 50-52 General Bank Statement, Turnover reconciliation 26-02-2024 SCN issued NP Rate applied @11% not mentioned

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

49 taxmann.com 506 (Cochin-Trib.) observed as under:- 48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns

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.”

section 251(1)(a), it was the CIT(A) who had the powers against an order of assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Therefore, when an appeal was pending the before ld. CIT(A), the power of the CIT(A) was co-terminus with the power of the AO. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance

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)

49,581/-, thus totaling to Rs.24,58,88,989/- and this amount is more than Rs.16,82,01,789/- which is sum total of BK-08 to BK-11. Thus after demonetization year i.e. 31.03.2017, total cash receipts shown by appellant are much more than the cash receipts found in these impounded material. Therefore the conclusion of Ld. AO that