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

34,94,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 2,97,93,070 31/01/2022 Partly allowed 12-13 28/12/2019 47,43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022

SHRI RAMESH MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Mishra V. Dy. Cit 5/863, Viram Khand Range-6 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agjpm3967B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow, Dated 29/8/2018, Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action In Making The Addition Of Rs.3.45 Lakhs, Comprising Of Rs.3.15 Lakhs Paid As Stamp Duty & Rs.30,000/- Paid In Cash, On Purchase Of A Residential Property. The Following Are The Grounds Raised: 1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The "Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-6, Lucknow (In Short "Dy. Cit"), Was Validly Vested With Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant" & On That Basis In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015. 2. Because There Being No Valid Transfer Of Jurisdiction From Income-Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow To "Dy. Cit", As Per Provisions Of Law, The Reassessment Order Passed By The Latter Was Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Re-Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal. 3. Because Even If It Is Held That The "Dy. Cit" Was Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The "Appellant"

reassessment order. In ‘Principal CIT-II, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Rizwan, Prop. M/s M.R. Garments Moulviganj, Lucknow’ (supra), the question formulated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was that if a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by an incompetent officer, i.e., one who has no jurisdiction, and subsequently, on the objection of the assessee with regard

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

Section 292 BB which are being reproduced hereunder: Change of incumbent of an office 129 “Whenever in respect of any proceeding under this Act an income- tax authorities ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another who has and exercise jurisdiction the income tax authority so succeeding may continue from the stage at which the proceeding was left

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)

reassessment commencing from notice dated 18.11.2011, in our view, and even otherwise, was illegal. 27. Now we come to legality of notice issued under Section 148. Admittedly, it was issued by a Designated Officer authorized to receive AIR information and make inquiry. Thereafter, said Designated Officer was supposed to furnish entire material to Competent A.O. for further action

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

34,73,600/- after making an addition of Rs. 11,17,87,500/- being addition under section 68 of the Act on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. The ld. First Appellate Authority deleted the entire addition by observing that on perusal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

34,73,600/- after making an addition of Rs. 11,17,87,500/- being addition under section 68 of the Act on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. The ld. First Appellate Authority deleted the entire addition by observing that on perusal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

34,73,600/- after making an addition of Rs. 11,17,87,500/- being addition under section 68 of the Act on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. The ld. First Appellate Authority deleted the entire addition by observing that on perusal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. WAVE DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LIMITED, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

reassessment proceedings for the captioned Assessment years was void-ab-initio, illegal and in contravention to the provisions of section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and the assessment orders passed are liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.153 to 157/LKW/2023 C.O. Nos.23, 24, 21,22 and 25/LKW/2023 Page

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:

34 under old Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1922") was considered and it was held that A.O. having power to issue notice should be a particular A.O. having jurisdiction over Assessee at the time of issue of requisite notice. If notice issued by any other A.O. or notice is bad for any reason, than such

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

In the result, appeals vide I

Reassessment Proceeding.\n27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n6.\nCopy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal)\n1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024\n2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024\n\nITA NO. 356/LKW./2020\nITA NO. 453/LKW./2020\nA.Y. 2016-17\nPAPER BOOK\nIN\nAPCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW\nINDEX\n\nS.L.\nNo.\nPARTICULARS\n1.\nCopy of Return of Income

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Reassessment Proceeding. 27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023, 16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023 6. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal) 1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024 2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024 ITA NO. 356/LKW./2020 ITA NO. 453/LKW./2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAPER BOOK IN APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW INDEX S.L. No. PARTICULARS 1. Copy of Return of Income 2. Copy

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 after more than four years would be clearly barred by time. 22. A similar provision, namely, Section 34

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of Act,\n1961 is AIR information received from PNB showing cash deposit of Rs.\n70,19,000/- in Assessee's Saving Bank Account. Since notice under Section\n148 of Act, 1961 dated 18.11.2011 was void having been issued by an\nOfficer having no jurisdiction, further notice issued under Section 143(2) of\nAct

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)

reassessment proceedings could have been initiated by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act, at the time when the assessment order for Assessment Year 2012 – 13 was passed by the Assessing Officer; that it was in consonance with this, that the impugned direction was, and correctly so, issued by the ld. CIT(A); that such direction

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Reassessment Proceeding. Dt. 27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023, 16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023 6. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal) 1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024 2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024 ITA NO. 356/LKW./2020 ITA NO. 453/LKW./2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAPER BOOK IN APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW INDEX S.L. No. PARTICULARS 1. Copy of Return of Income

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

reassessment de hors sec 144B Apart from being contrary to the intent purpose and scope of section 149 and of section 148A r/w sec 148. 12. That the CIT Appeals Faceless has erred in law and on facts by invoking sec 69A ignoring the fact that the assessment was completed by addition of amount not belonging to Appellant