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

68 of the Act as the assessee was not able to explain the unexplained credit. It was further argued that against the addition of Rs.8,57,31,152/- the assessee could produce ledger account and vouchers for Rs.7,69,08,761/- only. 6. As regards Ground No.4, the ld. DR stated that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance

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

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of surplus of Rs.3,90,37,074/-. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.3,05,40,229/- made by the AO on account of personal expenses ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce proper vouchers during the assessment proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

274/- on account\nof VAT in the P & L A/c but no documentary evidences is available on file.\nix. The case was picked up for complete scrutiny. However, besides\nroutine queries made, no concerted effort seems to have been made to\nexamine the Books of accounts. No third party enquiries have been\nundertaken and the AO has accepted all balances

SATYA KUMAR DARBARI,LUCKNOW vs. DCITACIT-4, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Kumar Darbari V. Dcit-4 381, Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 07 2024 O R D E R

274 of the Act, but there was no compliance from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 144 of the Act dated 28.11.2019 requiring the assessee to furnish all supporting details and documents by 2.12.2019. In response to this notice too, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact\nthat the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired\non 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to\nutilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice\nin writing. Placing reliance

NAND KISHORE SINGH,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, FACELESS

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact\nthat the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired\non 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to\nutilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice\nin writing. Placing reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact\nthat the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired\non 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to\nutilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice\nin writing. Placing reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact\nthat the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired\non 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to\nutilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice\nin writing. Placing reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact\nthat the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired\non 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to\nutilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice\nin writing. Placing reliance

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance

ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. ZAIN ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

274 r.w.s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is defective being without specific limb whether penalty to be levied under clause A or B of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The cross objector craves leave to introduce, amend or withdraw any cross objection with your honours kind permission. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative

ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. SHAHEEN RABIA, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

274 r.w.s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is defective being without specific limb whether penalty to be levied under clause A or B of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The cross objector craves leave to introduce, amend or withdraw any cross objection with your honours kind permission. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. MEHTAB ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

274 r.w.s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is defective being without specific limb whether penalty to be levied under clause A or B of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The cross objector craves leave to introduce, amend or withdraw any cross objection with your honours kind permission. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. TABREZ ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

274 r.w.s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is defective being without specific limb whether penalty to be levied under clause A or B of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The cross objector craves leave to introduce, amend or withdraw any cross objection with your honours kind permission. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative

ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. ZAINA FATIMA AHMAD, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

274 r.w.s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is defective being without specific limb whether penalty to be levied under clause A or B of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The cross objector craves leave to introduce, amend or withdraw any cross objection with your honours kind permission. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative