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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by the Ld. A.Ο.” 2. The facts of the case are that the case was taken up for scrutiny through

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

PRIME PRODUCTS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 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 In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

U/S 69 BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS ITSELF DISPUTED AND UNDER CHALLENGE, AND NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED UNTIL FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT ON SUCH ADDITION. 7 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) NFAC HAS FAILED TO GIVE PROPER CONSIDERATION TO THE EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, THEREBY VIOLATING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

AJAY KUMAR NIRWAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

14,665/- as against returned I.T.A. No.121/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 income of Rs.9,72,730/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. Vide order dated 19/03/2019, penalty amounting to Rs.1,49,010/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal in the office

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

14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the notice for reopening which was based on information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases made by the assessee." 17. In the result, petition is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

14,22,053/- under section 56(2)(vii) and Rs. 49,11,947/- under section 50C, treated as escaped income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

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

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 are reproduced

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/was again imposed on 18.12.2014. Considering the above facts as well as past records, prosecution proceedings u/s 276D of I.T. Act, 1961 have also been initiated for willfully withholding copy of Audit Report with all enclosures and annexures for the year under consideration alongwith preceeding two years; books of account and other

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also initiated separately". Hence, at this stage, before asking for any relief from the Hon'ble Bench, it is necessary for the assessees to prove what has prevented it from complying with the direction of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act : Rs.21,53,270/- Variation in respect of addition : Rs.1,36,00,000/- Total income : Rs.1,57,53,270/- ITA No.418/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 14 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271