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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

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

section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: "Meaning of service by post": Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then

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

section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: "Meaning of service by post": Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then

LATE ANIL KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE JYOTI,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Late Anil Kumar V. The Ito-3(2) Chakravarti (Through Hardoi Legal Heir & Wife, Jyoti) Hardoi Tan/Pan:Aampc3735C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

reassessment of income/loss under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) to examine the source of cash deposit. In compliance to the notice under section 148 of ITA No.437/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 the Act, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.2,33,110/-. Subsequently, notices dated 21.08.2018 under

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

69,463/- for the assessment\nyear 2012-13 and Rs.2,42,72,852/- for the assessment year 2014-15 as service\ntax and not remitted the same to the Government exchequer, before the due date\nof filing of the return of income. As such, the issue whether the provisions of\nsection 43B of the I. T. Act applies to service

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

69 was a patent misadventure in law, 3. That, Assessment Unit and the CIT Appeal Faceless, erred in law and on facts since the Quantum of alleged amount leading to alleged escapement of income which has warranted the alleged reassessment has been erroneously made to wrongly appear as if it was escapement of Income purportedly of Rs.57,87,970 Lakhs

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

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

69 of the Act. The ld. AO had given a clear finding that despite number of opportunities provided to the assessee, the nature and source of the deposit of cash had not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. During 6 Vinay Pratap Singh A.Y. 2012-13 appeal proceedings also, apart from a vague submission that the deposit was related

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

69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV estimated by DVO. \n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses \non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit is estimated

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. STATUS VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 69 is an enquiry which is reasonable\nand just the amount of cash credits could not be included in the total\nincome d the assessee because the Assessing Officer had not made proper\nenquiry. In this regard the following judgements are directional.\nPr. CIT v. Adamine Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 4) where\nit was held that relevant

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

69 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adding an amount of Rs. 29,91,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 when the same relates to sales and realization from debtors and already

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

Reassessment Proceeding.\ndt. 05.09.2023, 08.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 16.03.2024,\n15.03.2024\n6. Original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dt. 23.04.2021 and\nCIT(A) order u/s 250 dt. 25.06.2024\n7. Assessment Order u/s 147 dt. 28.03.2024\n8. Copy of Form-35\n9. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dt.\n07.01.2025\n10. Copy of CIT(A)-3, Lucknow Order

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

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

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

reassessment notice on ground that assessee had failed\nto satisfactorily explain source of fund for cash deposit of Rs.12.50 lakhs made\nby assessee in 'PN' bank - It was noted that cash deposit of Rs.12.50 lakhs was\nnot adjudicated upon during original scrutiny proceedings - In income-tax return,\nassessee had only mentioned detail of cash deposited in 'C' bank account

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

69 of the Act. The aforesaid assessment orders were passed consequent to search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act in Ramesh Group of cases on 08/07/2016. The Assessing Officer passed the aforesaid assessment order by assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act; search warrant u/s 132 of the Act having been issued in the name of the assessee. Both

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

69 of the Act. The aforesaid assessment orders were passed consequent to search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act in Ramesh Group of cases on 08/07/2016. The Assessing Officer passed the aforesaid assessment order by assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act; search warrant u/s 132 of the Act having been issued in the name of the assessee. Both