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

unexplained cash credits during the course of the reassessment proceedings. The case of the donors travelled to the Honourable Income

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

unexplained cash credits during the course of the reassessment proceedings. The case of the donors travelled to the Honourable Income

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

cash was paid and cheques were received in lieu of commission paid through his CA Mr. Manish Agarwal, The details of bogus unsecured loans received by assessee is given as under- ………………………. …………………………… In assessment year under consideration an amount of Rs.4,70,50,000/- arranged through M/s Wise Financial Advisor Services Pvt. Ltd. on a commission

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

cash was paid and cheques were received in lieu of commission paid through his CA Mr. Manish Agarwal, The details of bogus unsecured loans received by assessee is given as under- ………………………. …………………………… In assessment year under consideration an amount of Rs.4,70,50,000/- arranged through M/s Wise Financial Advisor Services Pvt. Ltd. on a commission

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

unexplained credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

unexplained credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

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

unexplained credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

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

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

reassessment both are bad in law be quashed. 03. Because the reasons/information as mentioned in the annexure to the notice u/s.148A(b) speak of non-disclosure of cash credits in the return of income whereas the, assessment framed is on account of unexplained

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KUMARGANJ FAIZABAD vs. ITO-1, FAIZABAD-NEW, FAIZABAD

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

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

reassessment was initiated without reference to 1 A/w S.A. No.1/LKW/2025 Devendra Pratap Singh A.Y. 2017-18 CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017, which provides guidelines for verifying cash transactions during demonetization. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer may not have fully reconciled the cash deposits with the appellant's financial statements, including the Profit & Loss Account and Audit Report, which were

RAGHAV AGARWAL (HUF),KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

cash credit u/s 68 as against LTCGs claimed by the assessee, exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 6. Because the CIT(A) has ignored the plethora of evidences filed before the AO and before him, with respect to the transactions as entered upon and has summarily dismissed

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

Unexplained Cash Credit'\nbeing Share Application Money received from the company, Sharma Hire\nPurchase Ltd. (NBFC company) inspite of the fact that all the details in this\nregard had been filed during the course of original assessment\nproceedings.\nThe written submissions are as under:-\n(A). FOR FIRST & SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL:\nThe return of income had been filed vide

OCEAN DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

unexplained cash credit. 2.1. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in refusing to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2.2 Because, without prejudice, in the interests of justice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings since the same

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

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

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

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 clearly discussed in the assessment order that no satisfactory explanation in this regard was furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings and the same was devoid of merit. 3. Ld. Commissioner

OPG SONS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

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

reassessment framed be quashed. 4. Because the addition of Rs.2,61,53000/- made u/s 68 for reasons of failure to disclose the investment made in the property, being contrary to 1 OPG Sons Properties Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 the facts and to the provisions of the section itself, the addition made be deleted. 5. Because on a proper consideration