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

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

seizure action were carried-out in the cases of the assessees on 29.12.2015. Section 153A have been inserted into the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.06.2003. Prior to that there were provisions contained under section 158BC being the special procedure for assessment of search cases. Thus, the provisions of Section 153A to 153D are applicable in the case of assessees. According

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

seizure action were carried-out in the cases of the assessees on 29.12.2015. Section 153A have been inserted into the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.06.2003. Prior to that there were provisions contained under section 158BC being the special procedure for assessment of search cases. Thus, the provisions of Section 153A to 153D are applicable in the case of assessees. According

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

seizure action were carried-out in the cases of the assessees on 29.12.2015. Section 153A have been inserted into the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.06.2003. Prior to that there were provisions contained under section 158BC being the special procedure for assessment of search cases. Thus, the provisions of Section 153A to 153D are applicable in the case of assessees. According

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Search and Seizure — Undisclosed Income Detected - Block Assessment — Issue of Notice u/s 143(2) within prescribed time - Mandatory - Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 143(2), 158BA, 158BC, 158BH - CBDT Circular No. 717 Dated 14.08.1995. Though in the above case, assessment was completed by ld.AO u/s 153A, without issuing notice u/s 143(2), the same is applicable to assessments completed

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

147. Thus in view of the fact that the proviso has not been invoked by the Assessing officer, a serious jurisdictional error has been committed by the Assessing officer which leads to the Assessment order being a nullity. Page 49 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 Further to our submissions made in Grounds

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

147. Thus in view of the fact that the proviso has not been invoked by the Assessing officer, a serious jurisdictional error has been committed by the Assessing officer which leads to the Assessment order being a nullity. Page 49 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 Further to our submissions made in Grounds

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Reassessment Proceeding. dt. 05.09.2023, 08.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 16.03.2024, 15.03.2024 6. Original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dt. 23.04.2021 and CIT(A) order u/s 250 dt. 25.06.2024 7. Assessment Order u/s 147 dt. 28.03.2024 8. Copy of Form-35 9. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dt. 07.01.2025 10. Copy of CIT(A)-3, Lucknow Order u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

seizure operation. In the event of no incriminating material being found during search, no additions can be made in respect of those assessments which have become final. 7.1 On a perusal of records, it is evident that in all the three appeals before us the assessments stood completed in as much as in the case of Shri Ankur Anand

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

seizure operation. In the event of no incriminating material being found during search, no additions can be made in respect of those assessments which have become final. 7.1 On a perusal of records, it is evident that in all the three appeals before us the assessments stood completed in as much as in the case of Shri Ankur Anand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

seizure operation. In the event of no incriminating material being found during search, no additions can be made in respect of those assessments which have become final. 7.1 On a perusal of records, it is evident that in all the three appeals before us the assessments stood completed in as much as in the case of Shri Ankur Anand

PUTUL CHOUBEY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

seizure of any incriminating material evidencing any undisclosed income of the assessee. As per order sheet entry of the Tribunal, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 14/07/2017. However, on an application by the learned counsel, the appeal got adjourned to 25/07/2017. On 25/07/2017, the order sheet entry recorded by Tribunal, reads as under: “25/07/2017 From Department: Shri

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

147 of the act, the Assessing Officer is obligated to follow the procedures contemplated and furnish the reasons for arriving a particular decision. In the present case, reasons are furnished for reopening of assessment. The objections should have been disposed of in a meaningful manner by the Ld Assessing Officer. The consideration of objections and the findings for reopening

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)

seizure of incriminating material against the assessee during the search. However, he 7 Vinay Pratap Singh A.Y. 2012-13 submitted that the warrant of authorization (copy of which was placed in 144) was not issued in the name of the assessee but rather it was issued in the name of Sh. Shafaat Ejaz Siddiqui and Sh. Tabish Mansoor

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

seizure of cash amounting to Rs.65,87,000/- from two persons namely Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor. Since these persons could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and therefore, cash was seized by the ATS and consequently a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 u/s. 132A of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Kanpur

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

seizure of cash amounting to Rs.65,87,000/- from two persons namely Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor. Since these persons could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and therefore, cash was seized by the ATS and consequently a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 u/s. 132A of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Kanpur

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

seizure of cash amounting to Rs.65,87,000/- from two persons namely Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor. Since these persons could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and therefore, cash was seized by the ATS and consequently a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 u/s. 132A of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Kanpur

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

seizure of cash amounting to Rs.65,87,000/- from two persons namely Safaat Ejaz Siddiqui & Tabish Mansoor. Since these persons could not explain the source/purpose of the cash and therefore, cash was seized by the ATS and consequently a warrant of authorization dated 17.08.2011 u/s. 132A of the Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Kanpur