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

house property situated at\nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F\nof Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.93,93,846/- on account

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

property by Smt Geeta Awasthi from Rekha Vij and debits of such money towards Rekha Vij reflects only utilization of such cash and not generation of such cash" 20. That the CIT A Faceless erred in law and on facts by failing to apply the intent purpose and scope of section 69A to the facts which had to be read

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)

69A or Section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 22 of 28 Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom

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

house property situated at\nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F\nof Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,74,492/- on account

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 by the assessee against which deduction wrongly Rs.92,447/- disallowed for Rs.92,447/- . 3. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the fact that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-has been elaimed under 3 chapter VI-A by the assessee against which deduction wrongly disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer

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 ITA(IT) No.517/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 8 of Rs.14,44,000/- in his bank account No.126301075021

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 during

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

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

section 69A because the same related to transactions and realization from debtors and had already been offered by the assessee for taxation. Further, it was submitted that there was an error in holding that sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- was unexplained investment, when he had himself recorded the fact that the assessee had received money for the sale

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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)

69A of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 2,72,32,982/- in the purchase of immovable property during the assessment year 2018-19. He asked the assessee to explain the sources thereof. After considering the explanation submitted

VIVEK DIXIT,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

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

section 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee's\ntotal income was determined at Rs.37,89,155/- (Rounded off to\nRs.37,89,160/-) as against the returned income of\nRs.15,29,020/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an amount of\nRs.20,00,000/- was added u/s 69A of the Act. A further addition

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

house under construction and native place Gonda\nconsidering the supporting documents placed on record and genuineness of\ntransaction.\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.68,98,817/- claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act – Rs.\n68,98,817/-.\n10. Whether on facts and circumstances

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

house property\nsituated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO\nrejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR\nin AL schedule:-\ni. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\nii. Balrampur\niii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\niv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow\n37\nIgnoring the submission of assessee

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

SHILPI SINGH,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FAIZABAD, FAIZABAD

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 30/07/20225, 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PURSHOTTAM NARAIN SHUKLA,UNNAO vs. ITO WARD -2(4), UNNAO-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriapurshottam Narain Shukla Income Tax Officer, V. Ward-2(4) 2/63 Kanchan Nagar, Shuklaganj, Unnao, Uttar Makhi House, Civil Lines, Pradesh-209801. Unnao, Uttar Pradesh- 209801. Pan:Axnps4591E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 10 2024 O R D E R

house property besides agriculture income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of 56,48,770/- by making an addition of Rs.51,00,000/- u/s 69A, read with Section