DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

AGMOTEX FABRICS LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2005-06 Agmotex Fabrics Ltd V. The Dy. Commissioner 3/239 Vishnupuri, Kanpur- Of Income Tax, Range-6 208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aabca6099H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 04 2026 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) being not applicable, the authorities below have erred in imposing the penalty of Rs.1,26,065/-, which penalty being bad in law be deleted. 05. Because there being no specific charge as mandated u/s

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

26,706/- from ADM(LA), Nagarpalika, Lucknow on which tax of Rs.10,42,670/- had been deducted. Therefore, treating the said amount as income of the assessee having escaped assessment, the AO re- opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued requisite notice u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval of the Competent Authority. In response

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

26,706/- from ADM(LA), Nagarpalika, Lucknow on which tax of Rs.10,42,670/- had been deducted. Therefore, treating the said amount as income of the assessee having escaped assessment, the AO re- opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued requisite notice u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval of the Competent Authority. In response

MAKASHOOD ASHARAF,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

u/s 271B of I. T. Act is illegal and liable to be quashed.” And prayed that the same had been raised at this stage as this was a purely legal ground that went to the very root of the case. The assessee placed reliance on the following cases for proposition that he was entitled to raise the fresh legal ground

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

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)

271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s 68 of the act is a legal fiction and the same need not necessarily as a result of concealment of particulars of income raising suspicions

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)

271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s 68 of the act is a legal fiction and the same need not necessarily as a result of concealment of particulars of income raising suspicions

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)

271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s 68 of the act is a legal fiction and the same need not necessarily as a result of concealment of particulars of income raising suspicions

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, both the appeals before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of delay in filing of the appeals before the NFAC. 6. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeals by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeals: GROUNDS

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, both the appeals before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of delay in filing of the appeals before the NFAC. 6. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeals by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeals: GROUNDS

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

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

26, 1974 and on the very next day, that is, on March 27, 1974, he issued the impugned notice under Section 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