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)

68 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the scrip of Premier Capital Services Limited was a penny stock company. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no bar in proceedings under section 153A

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)

68 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the scrip of Premier Capital Services Limited was a penny stock company. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no bar in proceedings under section 153A

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)

68 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the scrip of Premier Capital Services Limited was a penny stock company. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no bar in proceedings under section 153A

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. STATUS VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections": [ "68", "150", "147", "148", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68

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

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

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "68", "148", "139", "142(1)", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years

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

68 of the Act. He therefore, recorded his satisfaction that the Income to the tune of Rs. 14.76 crores had escaped assessment and that this was due to the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all facts. 8. Section 147

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A), we confirm the same as he has adjudicated the issue In the light of various judicial pronouncements. Accordingly we confirm his order. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. " ln view of the above

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

68,95,083/- made by the AO on account of administrative expenses ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the increase in expenditure and did not furnish any justification and explanation in this regard during the assessment proceedings. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A] has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.7

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

Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not validIncome Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case laws Paper book pages 62- 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.

147 as void ab initio in terms of the aforesaid judgments. Moving on to the merits of the addition, the ld. AR pointed out that the AO had made the addition of deposits in the bank account, under section 68

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,45,495/- being the difference of commission calculated and commission (Settlement account) shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account. The AO completed the assessment under section 147

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,45,495/- being the difference of commission calculated and commission (Settlement account) shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account. The AO completed the assessment under section 147

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

147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That

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

147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That

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

147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That

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)

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 26.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the Notice issued u/s 148, the reasons as recorded and the material/ information as relied upon all being self-contradictory, contrary to facts, without verification, the re-assessment framed thereafter is all without

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

147 read with section 144B of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,00,000/- made pertaining to claim

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

section 68 by sufficient documentary evidence as discussed above which has neither been controverted nor disproved by the Assessing Officer. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable and covered in the present facts of the case where the courts have quashed the assessment framed without discharging the onus shifted by the appellant upon the Assessing Officer