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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

68. The only addition could have been made on commission income of fees charge toward providing such entries which may vary between 0.2% to 1% of amount transactions. Reliance is placed on following: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Alag Securities (P.) Ltd. (2020 117 taxmann.com 292 (Bombay) Section

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does not\nrender assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue Held, yes Assessee received gifts from

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

section 68 of the Act if the creditors were entities / persons involved in providing accommodation entries. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had laid down in the case of Motilal Padampat Udyog Limited vs. CIT, 293 ITR 656 that the right of cross examination were not required under the law for a valid

YASH ORNAMENTS (P) LTD.,,BAREILLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Yash Ornaments (P) Ltd. V. The Acit Lg, 2/35C, Krishna Janki Circle-2 Complex, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly Pan:Aaacy3311K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 07 2024 O R D E R

292 B of the Act whereas in fact it is neither a mistake, defect or omission by the AO but a conscious decision to apply the provisions of sec. 68 of the Act and thus the action of the Ld. CIT (A)s to suo motu change the section

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

292) (Raj.); “15. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under section 263 is wide and is meant to ensure that due revenue ought to reach the public treasury and if it does not reach on account of some mistake of law or fact committed by the assessing officer, the Commissioner of income tax can cancel that order and require the concerned assessing

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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 of the Act by treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- from M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. and unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd as unexplained cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made

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 of the Act by treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- from M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. and unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd as unexplained cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made

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 of the Act by treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- from M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. and unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd as unexplained cash credits by alleging the said loans to be bogus. (ii) Addition of Rs.6,72,000/- made