DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW. vs. M/S. MG AUTOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW.

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

68 for unexplained cash deposit was deleted without sound basis. Page 18 of 19 2.6 Issue of double addition: The assessee claimed and the Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the cash deposit made by it was added both as unexplained cash as per section

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

deposit cash at regular intervals of substantial amounts. Thus, the contention that assessee had substantial cash in hand was not acceptable and only Rs. 19,00,000/- of the amount of Rs. 2,83,19,000/- was explained. Therefore, he disallowed the balance of Rs. 2,64,19,000/- and added the same back under section 68

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act and he added them back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the total cash deposited

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHREE PATESHWARI ELECTRICALS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

section 68 cannot be invoked and cash deposited cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. The treatment of the cash

TACK EXIM PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

deposited in its bank account(s).” The AO, accordingly, treated the cash credit of Rs.1,25,82,000/- found recorded in the books of the assessee-company as unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

deposit out of 17,50,26,651.00 bogus cash receipts 2.1 The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by making addition of Rs.17,50,26,650/- under section 68

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

deposit out of 17,50,26,651.00 bogus cash receipts 2.1 The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by making addition of Rs.17,50,26,650/- under section 68

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that of the preceding years because of change in the nature of business. It was further explained, that the sales had concluded on 06.11.2016 and the cash received on account of such sales could not be deposited in the bank on account of critical illness of the Managing

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that of the preceding years because of change in the nature of business. It was further explained, that the sales had concluded on 06.11.2016 and the cash received on account of such sales could not be deposited in the bank on account of critical illness of the Managing

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MEDHRAJ TECHNO CONCEPT PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Medhraj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax G-05, Sky Hi Chambers, Park Road, Range – 1 Hazratganj Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aafcm1276N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. O R D E R

cash deposits were rather assessee’s income from unexplained sources which was liable to be added to the income of the assessee under section 68

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

cash deposits under section 68 without bringing any tangible evidence that cash deposit is not from books. The addition u/s 68

M/S BAJRANG LAL JINDAL,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

cash and deposited in the account for forward payments to the broker M/s Maa Devasar Commodity. Therefore, no case of unexplained deposits are made out in the case of the assessee on this account. Finally, we observe that the addition could not be made under section 68

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

section 144 was also issued and served through the verification unit. However, the assessee did not make any response to this notice also. Finally, on 23.02.2022, a final show cause notice was issued to the assessee, to which the assessee made a reply. It was submitted that the total amount of cash deposited by him in Axis Bank, Halsey Road

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

68 on estimate basis is not maintainable and we have restored the matter back to the file of the ld. AO to examine the cash deposits in the bank account with reference to the cash sale of the assessee, levy of penalty under section

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

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "253(3)", "69A", "139(1)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "148", "115BBE", "2(1A)", "56" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of unexplained cash deposits

ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6 (I), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 6(1) 557/27G/6, Om Nagar Lucknow - New Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aqbpk1644F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

deposits in his bank account, the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68

SHRI PANKAJ VERMA,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2020 is partly allowed while I

cash in hand, we hold that the Assessing Officer\nwas unjustified in classifying the deposits made by the assessee out of such\nsales and realization of debt from sales on credit, to be unexplained and\nadding them back under section 68

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI PANKAJ VERMA, LUCKNOW

In the result, I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2020 is partly allowed while I

cash in hand, we hold that the Assessing Officer\nwas unjustified in classifying the deposits made by the assessee out of such\nsales and realization of debt from sales on credit, to be unexplained and\nadding them back under section 68