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

147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

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

147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

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

147(b) of the Act and that he did not have conducted any Inquiry or investigation into the information sent by Shri Bagai. Merely because the Impugned notice was sent on the next day after receipt of the letter of Shri Bagal does not mean that the Income Tax Officer did not apply his mind to the information contained

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

SMT. DIVYA AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

147 were initiated issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Later on, notices u/s 142(1) was issued fixing compliance on 02/06/2016. On the date fixed, neither anybody attended nor filed any written submissions, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. When no compliance was made, the I.T.A. No.268/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year

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

section 147 of the Act and on a due consideration of this illegality alone, the id "CIT(A)" ought to have held the re- assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 11. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

section 147 of the Act and on a due consideration of this illegality alone, the id "CIT(A)" ought to have held the re- assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 11. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

section 147 of the Act and on a due consideration of this illegality alone, the id "CIT(A)" ought to have held the re- assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 11. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

147, and a notice under section 148 was issued. The reassessment led to an addition of Rs.2,14,22,053/- under section 56(2)(vii) and Rs.49,11,947/- under section SOC, 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

SHAKIRA KHATOON( WIFE&L/H)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHAKIRA KHATOON (WIFE&LH)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DY.CIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHKIRA KHATOON W/O LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

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

147 read with section 144/144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per return : Nil Addition u/s. 69A of the Act. : Rs.90,76,952/- Addition u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under

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

147 read with section 144/144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per return : Nil Addition u/s. 69A of the Act. : Rs.90,76,952/- Addition u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under

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

147 read with section 144 of the Income tax Act resulting into addition of Rs 1,09,47,800/ u/s 69A as unexplained deposit and Rs 3,16,609/-as interest earned. The AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased