KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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)

127 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer to transfer the case from Kanpur-4 to Kanpur-2. The Assessing Officer who had jurisdiction to assess the assessee issued notice u/s 143(2) only on 07.09.2015 which was beyond the prescribed time limit for issuance of such notice. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

reassessment. Section 120 of the Act empowers the\nCBDT to confer concurrent jurisdiction on two or more AOs, and section 127

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings are invalid.A copy of case\nlaw is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 18.\nHon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Swati Verma vs. ITO, Ward\n3(4), Noida on 1st August, 2018:\nSince the A.O. did not apply his mind to the information and that A.O. did\nnot record in the reasons that he has reason

POONAM SEN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, RANGE 1(3), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 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)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

127, the officer there had no 7 Poonam Sen A.Y. 2008-09 jurisdiction to issue a notice to the assessee and the assessee was not obliged to respond to such notice. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that since the notice under section 148 had been issued by an officer who lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notice, the consequent assessment

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

section 127(1) who are in the rank of CIT or above. As acknowledged in the written submissions by the Revenue, there is no order on record passed u/s 127 of the Act in the present case. 12. Before we proceed to advert on the issue in hand, the chronology on certain important events are worth noting, which

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

section 127(1) who are in the rank of CIT or above. As acknowledged in the written submissions by the Revenue, there is no order on record passed u/s 127 of the Act in the present case. 12. Before we proceed to advert on the issue in hand, the chronology on certain important events are worth noting, which

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

section 127(1) who are in the rank of CIT or above. As acknowledged in the written submissions by the Revenue, there is no order on record passed u/s 127 of the Act in the present case. 12. Before we proceed to advert on the issue in hand, the chronology on certain important events are worth noting, which

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

section 127(1) who are in the rank of CIT or above. As acknowledged in the written submissions by the Revenue, there is no order on record passed u/s 127 of the Act in the present case. 12. Before we proceed to advert on the issue in hand, the chronology on certain important events are worth noting, which

SMT. SWAROOPMA TRIPATHI,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-II, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Swaroopma Tripathi V. Ito-Ii 820, Awas Vikas Colony Faizabad Amaniganj Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aglpt9805D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 01 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 01 2020 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 22/8/2019 For Assessment Year 2010- 11, Taking The Following Grounds:

reassessment order dated 04.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the "Act". 4. BECAUSE the reasons were recorded only with a view to verify the source of cash deposits in the savings bank account which narration did not amount to requisite satisfaction for belief of escapement of income and owing to such a fundamental deficiency in the recording of reasons

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

127 as not pressed whereas on the contrary, the assessee had discussed the ground thoroughly. 05. Because there being no material top form reason to believe, that the income has escaped assessment, the notice issued under section 148 is devoid of substance, the re-assessment framed be quashed. 06. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

127 as not pressed whereas on the contrary, the assessee had discussed the ground thoroughly. 05. Because there being no material top form reason to believe, that the income has escaped assessment, the notice issued under section 148 is devoid of substance, the re-assessment framed be quashed. 06. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances

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

127/[2008] 167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods

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

127/[2008] 167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods

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

127/[2008] 167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

reassessment proceeding\ncovered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of\nnotice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been\nconsidered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while\nissuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings\ntherefore

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. 17. In Smt. Mahesh Kumari Batra's case (supra ), it has been held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer acquires the power to assess the undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over by serving notice

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. 17. In Smt. Mahesh Kumari Batra's case (supra ), it has been held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer acquires the power to assess the undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over by serving notice