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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148 issued by Id. ITO-1(5), Kanpur is\nwithout jurisdiction and failure of application of mind and\nchange of opinion hence therefore the entire assessment is\nnullity and bad in law.\nBecause the Id. AO, has failed to appreciate reply and\nsubmissions which was filed by the Appellant during the case\nproceeding and imposed penalty u/s 271

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 u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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 u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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 u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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 u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

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

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

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21-09-2022; ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 13 iii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F 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

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21-09-2022; ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 13 iii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated

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(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved

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

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

148 of the Act and the same is requested by the assessee. It is further observed that the Appellant did not respond to various notices issued u/s 142(1), thus, compelling the AO to initiate proceedings u/s 144 and subsequently pass the order under the said section. Thus, sufficient opportunities were provided to the Appellant to make submissions, however

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 11 of the I.T. Act is in utter disregard to the judicial principles laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and several decisions of Hon'ble ITAT. The declared income, having been worked out in accordance with report in Form 10B should have been accepted. 3. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified, both on facts

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

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

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

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

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 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

DHIRENDRA PRATAP,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), WARD-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, 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 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter to the file of the AO for making a fresh assessment, vide order dated 19.12.2024, observing as under: “2.4. I find that the AO in his assessment