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

37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 47,33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful

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

1) of Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act; or 3. To disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of the relevant year. In this way, the authorities have to be satisfied that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment inter-alia for the reason of non disclosure of true and full material facts

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

1) of Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act; or 3. To disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of the relevant year. In this way, the authorities have to be satisfied that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment inter-alia for the reason of non disclosure of true and full material facts

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

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

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 in above captioned assessment years. 6. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal for assessment year 2013-14: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in (i) Deleting the addition of Rs.156,56,37,000/-, holding the same as 'distributable surplus' paid by the assessee M/s Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited to M/s United Breweries Limited

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:

37. A Constitution Bench, in Sardar Baldev Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC), a pari materia provision, i.e., Section 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

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1) of Section 263 of the Act only after examining "the record of any proceedings under the Act". The expression 'record' has also been defined in Clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include ail records relating to any proceedings available at the time of examination by the CIT. Thus, it is not only the assessment order

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 263 of the Act only after examining \"the record of any proceedings\nunder the Act\". The expression 'record' has also been defined in Clause (b) of the Explanation so\nas to include all records relating to any proceedings available at the time of examination by the\nCIT. Thus, it is not only the assessment order

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

37,120\nWardha Solar\n(Maharashtra)\nPvt Ltd\n2,15,687\n6,20,900\n4,05,213\nPrayatna\ndevelopers\nPvt Ltd\n1,19,39,657\n1,33,12,382\n13,72,725\nPioneer\nBhawani Land\nAggregator\n13,79,310\n16,27,586\n2,54,861\nAzure Power\nJupiter Private\nLimited

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

37,531/-, being book profit, under the provision of Section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, this case was referred for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2014. The Page 3 of 33 assessee agitated against the aforesaid order dated 21.03.2014 in Writ Petition filed in Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad

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

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, 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

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 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

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

37,633/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That both the assessment Order and the Appeal order passed are specifically