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)

demonetization and, therefore, the allegation of inflated sales for the purpose of depositing cash was ill-founded. 4.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the amount of sales had already been included in the books of account and, therefore, making an addition again of the same 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

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

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

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

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

demonetization period under section 68 as the assessee has made cash deposit of SBN till December 2016. The assessee kept

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

demonetization in the form of Specified Bank Notes to be 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

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.”

section 68 could not be applied. In this case, the assessee had been asked to prove the genuineness of the huge cash sales and in response, the assessee furnished a comparative charts alongwith the cash book, sales register and VAT returns. But the AO rejected the genuineness of huge sale figures prior to demonetization

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

demonetization. 8. We, for the sake of convenience, reproduce below section 68 of the I.T. Act: ITA No.198/LKW/2024 Page 9 of 13 "68

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:-

demonetization period was violative of the provisions of Notification No. S.O. 3408(E) as family bazars were separated entities not coming under the umbrella of the Corporation and therefore, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the above receipt of cash should not be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

demonetization period and the assessee could not explain the abnormal rise in the cash collections and therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and has imposed tax as per the provisions of section

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

section 68 apply to only credit entries or entries found in the books of account. Hence the addition u/s 68 for the transactions other than credit entry in books is bad in law.” 3. Subsequent to the case being taken up for hearing, the assessee withdrew the Cross Objection and accordingly the said Cross Objection is dismissed. 4. The facts

ANANT KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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)

demonetization period 1 Anant Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 pertains to legitimate sales, based merely on certain mathematical assumptions and calculations, without appreciating the complete facts and supporting documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 68

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income-tax Act and computing tax liability on the same u/s 115BBE of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

68,95,000/- received as corpus donation. He also brought the surplus of Rs.18,18,45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt under section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the same of Rs.14

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

68,95,000/- received as corpus donation. He also\nbrought the surplus of Rs.18,18,45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt\nunder section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs.\n22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the\nsame of Rs.14

SHARDA DEVI,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BASTI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

demonetization period under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted. 02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is carrying on the business of household items, such as, business of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) declaring profit under section 44AD @ 8% wherein the provisions of section 68

ATHLETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

demonetization period. On being required to explain the nature and source of cash deposits, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain before the AO the source of Rs.13,54,100/-. The AO, therefore, treated the same as unexplained cash credits and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68

SITA RAM RASTOGI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5),, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

section 68 of the I.T. Act, of the amount deposited on 23.11.2016, i.e., of Rs.19,10,000/-, on the presumption that the amount of Rs.19,10,000/-, deposited after a gap of five days from the date of the previous deposit on 18.11.2016, was generated in old SBNs during the demonetization

VINAY BHARTIA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(5), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vinay Bhartia, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55/58, Kahoo Kothi, Ward 1(1)(5), Naya Ganj, Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Kanpur-208001 Civil Lines, Pan: Achpb 6554B Kanpur-208001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

demonetization period. However, in spite of various notices being issued requiring the assessee to explain the source of said cash deposits, no reply was forthcoming from the part of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in terms of Section 68