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)

4,513,202 2,881,668 1,933,770 100,000 2,695,472 189,365 10,359,472 31- 10,359,472 249,418 819,725 89,380 - 17,992 (83,950) 11,405,194 December,2016 January

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

249(4)(b) of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, be set aside. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not giving finding on the merits of the case/appeal, which even otherwise should ought to have been given, the order passed by the CIT(A) being contrary

NEERAJ JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILLY vs. ACIT-1, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/Lkw/2025) In Ita. No.33/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal & Others Vs. The Acit-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Aaaan4041K (Appellant) (Respondent)

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/LKW/2025) In ITA. No.33/LKW/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal and others Vs. The ACIT-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. TAN/PAN:AAAAN4041K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent

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

b ) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.] In this regard, it is submitted that section 292BB provides that a notice shall be deemed

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

249:(2021)437ITR285(Del) HIGH COURT OF\nDELHI has held that :-\n\n\"The fact that the AO has not given reasons in the\nassessment order is not indicative, always, of whether\nor not he has applied his mind. Therefore, scrutiny of\nthe record, is necessary and while scrutinising the\nrecord the Court hasto keep in mind the difference\nbetween

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68,640/-. The Assessing Officer felt constrained to pass exparte assessment order under section 144 of the Act because the assessee failed to comply with the notices under section 148 of the Act and under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.22,62,000/- deposited in cash in the assessee

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 years. Her husband Late Babulal Yadav died on 17-12-1994. She brought up her children solely with small amount of family pension, agricultural income and honorarium from ‘Anganwadi’. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 8 of 13 b. As noted in para-2 and para-3 above, agricultural land purchased by appellant during the life-time of her husband

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 years. Her husband Late Babulal Yadav died on 17-12-1994. She brought up her children solely with small amount of family pension, agricultural income and honorarium from ‘Anganwadi’. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 8 of 13 b. As noted in para-2 and para-3 above, agricultural land purchased by appellant during the life-time of her husband

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2017-18 Mohd. Ayaz, vs. The DCIT, 262/81/2 Katara Azam Beg, Range-4, Lucknow Billochpura, Lucknow-226004 PAN:AIRPA6185H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement