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 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 pursuant to notice issued ITA No.646/LKW/2018 Page 9 of 12 under Section 148 by an incompetent Officer are void and ab initio. 45

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." 41. The curability permitted under Section 292BB is with regard to service of notice upon Assessee and not with regard to competence of authority who has issued notice. 42. A similar question was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat­II Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 1972 (4) SCC 394 and Court said "Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen

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 under section 148 of the Act was that the exemption under section 10(33) of the Act, and which was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from April 1, 2000, would not apply to any income arising from the transfer of units of a mutual fund. Since the assessee had earned dividend income from transfer

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 under section 148 of the Act was that the exemption under section 10(33) of the Act, and which was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from April 1, 2000, would not apply to any income arising from the transfer of units of a mutual fund. Since the assessee had earned dividend income from transfer

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, it will be worthwhile to understand the factual matrix leading to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As stated above, the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was completed on 22.10.2014 by passing order under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted. Thereafter, it was only

VIKAS JAIN,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 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), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

reassessment framed thereafter be quashed. 1 Vikas Jain A.Y. 2015-16 04. Because the NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.21,12,500/- u/s 50C of the Act which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law, be deleted. 05. Because the NFAC has failed to appreciate the 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be invalid. 8. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that non-reply of the non-statutory query letter cannot be a valid reason for reopening of the assessment. With regard to the case laws, on which reliance has been placed

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

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

45,75,195/- u/s 115JB as deemed income suggesting that on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act was found to higher than the tax worked out on the income determined under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. Vide Para (2) of the notice under section 142(1) dated 26.09.2013, it was specifically required to furnish copy

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

45,53,688/- on account of applying NP rate @ 11% on \ntotal turnover after rejecting the book result shown, in section 145(3) of the Act, \nwithout appreciating the fact that the trading results shown by the assessee \nwere found open to verification and were unreliable. \n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.] In case of assessments u/s 153A provision for prior approval under section 153D has been made. Approval can only

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

45,040/- was seized. Subsequently, locker no 309 in oriental bank of commerce, Ranjeet Nagar, Kanpur, in the name of Shri Sukhwinder Singh and Smt. Suman Preet was also operated in which jewellery amounting to Rs.2,06,20,623/- was found but not seized, all the jewellery items were returned back at the same time. With regard to the availability

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

45,95,400/-. However, the assessee had failed to explain the same and therefore, he brought the entire deposits so reported of Rs.1,11,54,966/- to tax under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before

SHASHI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-1,, LUCKNOW

In the result, these two appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 (SC) (5) Pr. CIT vs. King Buildcon (P.) Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 189 (SC) (6) Pr. CIT vs. Saroj Sudhir Kothari [2023] 154 taxmann.com 128 (SC) (7) Pr. CIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 15 (Gujarat) (8) Pr. CIT vs. M. Kiran Kumar [2024] 165 taxmann.com 672 (Madras) (9) Poonam Builders vs. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com (Bombay