SACHIN 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

70,000/- on a account of alleged unexplained money. 6. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.46/Lkw/2022

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 proceedings under Section 148 of Act, 1961 is AIR information received from PNB showing cash deposit of Rs. 70

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

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

section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was assessed at Rs.1,87,46,50,100/-, as under: Detail Amount (Rs.) Sales not included as it has been claimed 3,57,65,45,000.00 relating to UBL brand (A) Consumption of raw materials and 1,13,84,87,000.00 packing materials not included as it has ITA Nos.153

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty of the JCIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are of the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is of two folds ; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the Department against any omission

MURLIDHAR LOHIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Murlidhar Lohia V. The Income Tax Officer 106, Anand Palace Ward 1(3)(1) Allengaj, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akbpl3586F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, 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 22.04.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 16.08.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,42,050/-. 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 148 Of The Act, On The Basis Of The Information That The Assessee Had Received Cash Credit Of Rs.14,21,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Details Of The Aforesaid Cash Credit With Documentary

70 (Bombay), submitted that since the mandatory requirement of giving minimum seven days of time to the assessee to furnish reply to the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, was not fulfilled, the impugned notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 17.03.2022 and further order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 27.03.2022 along with

ISHRAT BEG,SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ishrat Beg V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Akhtar Beg Sitapur Katra Astal, Laharpur Sitapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoypb5773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

70,620/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC, 270A, 271A and 271B of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and placed reliance on the order of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the assessee’s own case for assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

70,40,500 2017-18 13,14,39,408 10,42,74,000 2018-19 11,44,49,581 10,30,34,000 Total 38,30,88,696 31,43,48,500 4.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO had made the impugned addition purely on the basis of presumption and that he had failed to bring on record

L.H SUGAR FACTORIES LTD.,PILIBHIT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 148 related to Keyman Insurance Policies taken by the assessee. The relevant portion of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer befire issue of notice u/s 148 is as under: I.T.A. No.194/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 (B.1) Assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act wherein an addition of Rs.73,00,052/- was made

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

reassessment notice stood extended to 30.06.2021 and where the income alleged to have escaped assessment was above Rs.50 lakhs, the first proviso of section 149 of the Act (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) was not attracted and the notice was held to have been issued within the limitation period. The Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that this judgement

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

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70\ntaxmann.com 227 (Mum.Trib.)\n43.\n44.\nSir Ratan Tata Trust vs. DCIT (Exemption)[2020] 122\ntaxmann.com 273 (Mum.Trib.)\n45.\nCIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad High Court,\nΙ.Τ.Α. Νο.107 of 2015 order dated 20/08/2019\n46.\nCIT vs. M/s Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. Allahabad High Court,\nI.T.A. No.01 of 2015, order dated 23/02/2015\n47.\nPr.CIT

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section