INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

250(2) o f the1961 Act, as well there is a breach of Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules, and hence even on this count the appellate order passed by Id. CIT(A),Varanasi is not sustainable. Thus, we are setting aside and quashing the appellate order passed by Id. CIT(A), Varanasi as non-est, and we hold that

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 26433[or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D], the amount of tax on which interest was payable under this sub-section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 26433[or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D], the amount of tax on which interest was payable under this sub-section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced

M/S THE KASHI SAHKARI CHINI CHINI MILLS LTD.,,BHADOHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The Kashi Sahkari Chini, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mills Ltd., V. Circle-1, Aurai, Bhadohi, Varanasi. U.P. Pan:Aaaat7921J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Act by adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee/appellant on an issue which was not at all before him in the grounds of appeal raised before him. Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The Kashi Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. , Bhadohi v. DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi, U.P. 2. Because without prejudice to the aforesaid ground, no separate notice

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding levying penalty of Rs. 2,13,250/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 1961, levied

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

Section 250(2) of the 1961 Act, which reads as under: “Procedure in appeal 250. (1) *** *** *** *** (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative ; (b) The Assessing Officer , either in person or by a representative. *** *** *** ***” Fair hearing and adherence of principles

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,800/- under Chapter VIA of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, ex-parte, without discussing issues on merits and without giving his independent reasoning of his own. The operative part of the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), is reproduced hereunder: “Decision: I.T.A

SHAILESH MANI TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Acit, Circle-1 384-E Infront Of Var- V. Gorakhpur, U.P. Vadhu Marriage House,Aarogyamandir, Shahpurrapti Nagar, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan:Aefpt 5272A (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Act. There was no compliance on part of the appellant till date. The details of opportunities provided to the appellant in the case are tabulated as under:- Date of notice Remarks. Date of hearing fixed 06/11/2017 23/11/2017 Adjournment filed 28/11/2017 None attended 18/01/2018 29/01/2018 None attended 19/02/2018 08/03/2018 None attended 11/06/2018 27/06/2018 None attended 3 Assessment Year

M/S SHIVANG CARPETS PVT. LTD.,,BHADOHI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 01, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Shivang Carpets Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Circle-1, Fattupur, Naya Bazar, Varanasi, U.P. Bhadohi-221401, U.P. Pan: Aajcs3060N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of purchase payable to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- ( error committed by the AO by making addition to the tune of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- to returned loss, was corrected by ld. CIT(A) ) which stood added to the income of the assesseeby the AO, and the appeal of the assesseestood dismissed in limineex- parte

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

section 145(2) is also a decision inasmuch as it amounts to un acceptance of the method of accounting on the ground that the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is therefore open to the AAC to reject the assessee's books of account which have been accepted by the ITO. Hence, the books of account