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

investment in construction of 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

investment in construction of 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

unexplained investment \nin construction of house property at Gonda, without appreciating that the actual \nconsideration of Rs.31,45,000/- as declared

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

house property situated at Lucknow at the time of transfer of property that\nviolates the provisions of section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961.\nC.O.No.27/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2021-22 (Assessee’s C.O.)\n1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,76,800/- being difference between amount\ndetermined

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

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

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.”

unexplained income. He accordingly, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the order ought not to be revised accordingly. In response, the assessee made a submission in which he narrated the details of all the information that had been furnished by him during the course of assessment proceedings and in response to the various queries from the assessee

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

Housing Finance Ltd. Also the bank statement regarding the relevant period A.Y. 2015-16 has been provided. Disbursement has been made after ascertaining the repayment capacity and the evidences in regarding to amount provided has been made in the bank statement vide date 19.03.2015 on which cash has been deposited.” ITA No.505/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 9 2.2 Not being satisfied

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

property at Khata No. 192/2, Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda on\naccount of estimation made by VO, without appreciating the fact that the total\naddition made by the AO was Rs.61,94,596/-. The estimation of VO at Rs.\n32,61,603/-. Therefore, the difference in NP at 7% applied by the AO of Rs.\n29,32,993/- which

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

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

unexplained investment, when he had himself recorded the fact that the assessee had received money for the sale of immovable property. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had made a fresh claim before the ld. CIT(A) pointing out that the assessee had not claimed deduction in respect of his share of construction in the new house

RAHUL BAJPAI,LUCKNOW vs. AO NFAC/ITO-1, RAEBARELI

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

house property purchased from U.P.Awas Vikas Parishad disallowing payment received by the appellant Page 2 of 5 by means of Demand Draft of Rs.10,00,000/- from a friend of the appellant and also disallowing investment of Rs.8,45,470/- from old savings of the appellant. The addition of Rs.18,45,470/- is arbitrary and without considering full facts

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)

unexplained money of the assessee. 2.3 The AO further noticed that the assessee had failed to deposit the sum of Rs.1,12,102/- deducted from the salary of its employees in respect of Provident Fund and ESI within the due date. The AO, treated the same as income of the assessee under section

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)

unexplained money under section 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

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

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

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

investment in purchase of residential 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

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

Investment Regime for Pradhan Mantri\nGarib Kalyan Yojana, 2016' (PMGKY) proposed in the Bill.\nEvasion of taxes deprives the nation of critical resources which\ncould enable the Government to undertake anti-poverty and\ndevelopment programmers. It also puts a disproportionate\nburden on the honest taxpayers who have to bear the brunt of\nhigher taxes to make up for the revenue