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

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

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

147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.30,37,633/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising

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 proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act. The Ld. First Appellate Authority passed a detailed order and after placing reliance on various judicial precedents, he held that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

reassess. If circumstances require, the\nNFAC may transfer the cases to the Jurisdictional AO during assessment proceedings.\nMoreover, section 144B of the Act itself confers a power upon the Principal Chief\nCommissioner or the Principal Director General to transfer cases to the jurisdictional\nAO. Section 144B of the Act is inherently procedural and only outlines the process in\nwhich

ARCHANA GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

148A w.e.f. 01.04.2021 of the Act which is not permissible, this second notice is issued without disposal of first notice dated 20.04.2021 the reassessment framed be quashed but the ld. CIT(A) wrongly set aside the case ignoring the facts of the case and grounds and additional grounds submitted before him. 3. Because the first Notice u/s 148 is closed