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

delay in filing of the appeal, there was a reasonable cause being ‘MEDICAL REASONS OF ADVOCATE AYAZ AHMAD AYYUBI”, Sitapur and Assessee is living in Remote Area and was not aware about e-profile system, hence he is not aware about passing of Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) and Assessment Order. Thus the rejection of Condonation

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

delay in filing of the appeal, there was a reasonable cause being ‘MEDICAL REASONS OF ADVOCATE AYAZ AHMAD AYYUBI”, Sitapur and Assessee is living in Remote Area and was not aware about e-profile system, hence he is not aware about passing of Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) and Assessment Order. Thus the rejection of Condonation

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

delay in filing of the appeal, there was a reasonable cause being ‘MEDICAL REASONS OF ADVOCATE AYAZ AHMAD AYYUBI”, Sitapur and Assessee is living in Remote Area and was not aware about e-profile system, hence he is not aware about passing of Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) and Assessment Order. Thus the rejection of Condonation

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

delay in filing of the appeal, there was a reasonable cause being ‘MEDICAL REASONS OF ADVOCATE AYAZ AHMAD AYYUBI”, Sitapur and Assessee is living in Remote Area and was not aware about e-profile system, hence he is not aware about passing of Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) and Assessment Order. Thus the rejection of Condonation

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act. 3. The learned income tax officer has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s-234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, and modify any or all grounds of appeal. 5. Submission of appellant: During the appellate proceedings, appellant has made submissions, which

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

u/s 271(1)(c) in abeyance. 5.BECAUSE case laws relied by authorities below are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 7. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant" craves leave

PUNEET KATIYAR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3)(5), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) In this case, assessment order dated 07.03.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) separately, penalty order dated 04.09.2024 was also passed u/s 271

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

ATUL KISHORE TRIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.13/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Kishore Trivedi V. Income Tax Officer -4(1) Sultanpur Road, Katra Bakkas, Income Tax Appellate Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002. Tribunal Building, Lucknow-226002. Pan:Aodpt5131L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 11 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

u/s 271(1)(c) when the initial order has been set aside for fresh consideration, is unjustified and deserves to be set aside. 3. That the penalty order of the Ld. CIT (A), dated 21.08.2024, having been passed without affording proper and justified opportunity and appreciation of facts and legal background deserves to be set aside. 4. The appellant craves

M/S DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BARABANKI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I& CI ), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

271 FA could be levied. 5. The Ld. DIT (I & Cl) erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant reasonable and sufficient opportunity to have its say and to make compliances of the reasons being relied upon by him in making addition in the hands of the appellant.” 2. The present appeal has been filed before

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5

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

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

delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits. 3. In this case assessment order dated 09/03/2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed ex-parte qua the assessee wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.57,03,110/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.56

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

delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits. 3. In this case assessment order dated 09/03/2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed ex-parte qua the assessee wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.57,03,110/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.56