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

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

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

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding fresh material coming to the possession of Revenue, warranting it to gather a view that income of the appellant, has escaped assessment. The Appellant has duly filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year, much prior to the issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

2. Because, the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order passed under section 147/144 by the Assessing Officer, which order is without jurisdiction, be quashed. 3. Because, there being no material to form reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, the CIT (A) has wrongly upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2

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

2 of 7 the AO was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee, he reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, no return was filed by the assessee. Thereafter

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

2 of section 148 of the Act\nprovide various bases, other than RMS, such as information obtained during a search or\nsurvey, on which the jurisdictional AO can form an opinion about whether the income\nhad escaped assessment. The contingencies may not be triggered solely on data\navailable with the NFAC. Thus, section 144B of the Act cannot be constituted

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.2

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

reassessment proceedings have been validly initiated. Grounds are, thus, dismissed. 5.3. Ground 5 Vide this Ground, the Appellant has submitted that all information was furnished before the ITO(I&CI) and thus, there was no reason to believe that any Income has escaped assessment. I have considered the submissions of the Appellant. I find the same to be factually incorrect

IBRAHIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ibrahim International Ltd. Earlier Acit-3, Vs. Kanpur Known As Ibrahim International Trading Co., 40/121, Hospital Road Parade, Kanpur 208001 Pan – Aaafi 9671F (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 of 2012 dated 08. II.2013-NJKScication 2013-LL-1108-72” 6. In view of this, it is a settled position that m case of a firm, premium paid by the firm on the Keyrnan Insurance Policy of a partner, to safeguard the firm against a disruption of the business, is an admissible expenditure under section

SMT. NIRMALA NIGAM,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

reassessment proceedings are invalid. In this regard, the ld. A.R. of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT and Another, 363 ITR 300 (Alld.). (ii) Amar Nath Agarwal vs. CIT & Another, 371 ITR 183 (Alld.) (iii) Smt. Ushal Agarwal vs. ITO, order (CLPB: 162-185) 19/6/2018, passed by the ITAT (SMC), Agra

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.36,96,539/- under section 68 on account of closing balance in customer advances account. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.5,42,86,466/- under section

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

ALOK KUMAR RUNGTA,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Alok Kumar Rungta V. National Faceless Appeal B-40 Flat No.34 Manoram Centre Apartment Aliganj, Lucknow- Delhi. 226024. Pan:Ajqpr0755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2026 O R D E R

251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment: 71[Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back

OCEAN DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. In this case, a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee, in pursuance whereof assessment orders, each dated 21.12.2018 were separately passed for Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15 under section 153A read with section

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company but summons were returned unserved by the Postal Department. Further Inspector was also deputed to make enquiry