JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 3/10/2Q16. 5. That the time for filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to expire on 2/11/2016. 6. That as per the said order, I found that a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.79,31,687/-. 7. That

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act, vide order dated 19.02.2019, observing as under: “2. Undersigned has carefully considered the petition of the appellant u/s. 154 of the Act and the contentions therein. The only issue for consideration is whether notice for fixing appeal was served upon the assessee or not. 3. This office has already adjudicated the appeals of the appellant

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)(c) of the Act dated 21.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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)(c) of the Act dated 21.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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

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)

section 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

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)

section 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

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)

section 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

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

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and/or any other penal provisions under the Act shall be granted not only to the deponent but also to other "persons" forming part of 'Patel Group* as a whole, wherever the additional income and/ or part thereof is accounted for or deemed to have been accounted for/accounted; ITA No.390 to 396/LKW/2014 Page

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

35, which are reproduced as under: “Your appellant is an Individual and has become SADHU since the year 1980. He has set up his Ashram at Village Mandali in Mehsana and is trustee of Namami Satguruswami Trust. On the basis of the information available on the Insight portal disseminated, the case of the assesse was re-opened u/s

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

35 may also be considered as part of ground of appeal in the present appeal. 17. That the appellant craves leave to withdraw, introduce or modify any ground of appeal as and when need for doing so arises.” 2. In this case, assessment order dated 26.09.2014 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 143(3)/142

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

35) challenging non allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) (iii) in respect of an interest of Rs. 16412/- received u/s 244A. 9. That on the whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in confirming an addition of Rs.16412/ made on account of interest received u/s 244A