RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition, of Rs. 63,07,000/- made in the Assessment Order being Cash Deposit

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition, of Rs. 63,07,000/- made in the Assessment Order being Cash Deposit

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

cash deposit of Rs.5,92,724/- in the assessee’s bank account i.e. S.B.A/c No.84822200014042 with Syndicate Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) on the above added income of the assessee on the basis of unexplained deposits. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s. 271

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

cash deposit in bank u/s 69A of the income tax Act 1967. 2. The learned income tax officer has erred in law and on the facts in initiating penalty u/s 271

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction, because: i. Appellant never received any notice or order from the department prior

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction, because: i. Appellant never received any notice or order from the department prior

REETA DEVI,BANNAMAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash sales Rs.56,19,000/- @8% Rs.4,49,520.00. Through bank transfer sales Rs. 18,59,975/-@6% Rs. 1,11,599.00. Net Profit From Business Rs. 5,61,119.00 2- Interest on saving bank account Rs. 2,127.00 Gross Taxable Income Rs.5,63,246.00 Deductions u/s VI A Less: U/s. 80-C LIC Rs. 13,328.00 Less: U/s

REETA DEVI,BANNA MAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash sales Rs.56,19,000/- @8% Rs.4,49,520.00. Through bank transfer sales Rs. 18,59,975/-@6% Rs. 1,11,599.00. Net Profit From Business Rs. 5,61,119.00 2- Interest on saving bank account Rs. 2,127.00 Gross Taxable Income Rs.5,63,246.00 Deductions u/s VI A Less: U/s. 80-C LIC Rs. 13,328.00 Less: U/s

NITIN DWIVEDI,HARDOI vs. CIT(A), HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

deposits, without analysing cash-flow statements, books of account and capital introduction, is arbitrary and contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (11- May-1994) read with post-demonetisation guidelines. Non-consideration of peak theory/telescoping The AO ought to have granted telescoping of cash withdrawals against redeposits and should have applied the peak-credit method; failure

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

u/s. 50C of the Act : Rs.25,92,873/- Net taxable income (rounded off) : Rs.48,08,630/- 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961\npassed the order is clear cut violation of settled principle of law\nand against the principle of natural justice.\n6.\nBecause the Id. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) in the correct\naddress of the Appellant i.e. from Kanpur to Noida through\nspeed post and fixing the hearing date

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. ACIT, GONDA

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Gupta V. The Acit Bewa Chauraha Gonda - New Dumariyaganj Siddharth Nagar Tan/Pan:Bmypg7642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 270A(1) read with section 270A(9)(e) and 271 of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Later on, the case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee

RACHNA VARYANI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rachna Varyani V. The Income Tax Officer 117, R.N. Block Ward 2(3) Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaxpv4296Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the order of the AO. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well

SHRI GIRJA SHANKAR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

deposited Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI GIRJA SHANKAR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

deposited Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur-2 beyond the statutory period of time is without jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in consequence of such notice is also liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are in agreement with the argument of Ld. AR. Accordingly, additional grounds of appeal 5 to 8 are allowed. Since we have decided the legal issues

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

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

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

cash deposit has been treated to be unexplained for the reason that the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 has not been filed by the assessee. It is submitted, that there is no column in the return of income wherein deposits made in the bank account have to be declared. Thus, mere deposits in bank account would not amount

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

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

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

cash deposit has been treated to be unexplained for the reason that the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 has not been filed by the assessee. It is submitted, that there is no column in the return of income wherein deposits made in the bank account have to be declared. Thus, mere deposits in bank account would not amount