M/S ROYAL SYMBOL REAL ESTATE AGROTECH CORPORATION LTD.,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), BALLIA

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

cash deposits in the bank accounts. The Royal Symbol Real Estate Assessing Officer found the assesee’s explanations are satisfactory and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated29.09.2021 determining the total loss of Rs.6,83,308/-.The AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

DILIP KUMAR SINGH,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4),, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2010-11 Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Sarani Koth, Sikanderpur, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia Uttar Pradesh Pan-Adups6163M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022 O R D E R

cash deposit in the bank account of Rs. 63,89,000/-. The assessee produced some evidence before the CIT(A) showing the deposits are the sale proceeds of agriculture produce. The CIT(A) in the quantum appeal noted that the assessee received contract receipt of Rs. 34,50,003/- and estimated the net profit @ 8% which comes

SANJAY TIWARI,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GORAKHPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Tiwari V. The Ito Prop. Tiwari Automobiles Ward 2(1) Bewari Chowk, Gola Bazar Gorakhpur Gorakhpur Pan:Agupt4822H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2023 O R D E R

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (C) 271 (1) (b) and 271 B of I.T. Act 1961. The Ld A.O. has estimated the Turnover from business at Rs. 1, 08, 62.500/- being deposits made in Bank A/c and adopted N.P. rate @ 8%. After treating the entire deposits as Turnover determined Income of Rs. 8, 69,000/-Aggrieved with the order

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

cash deposits in Bank and held to be alleged unexplained credit u/s 69 of the Act. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made and sustained is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

cash deposits in Bank and held to be alleged unexplained credit u/s 69 of the Act. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made and sustained is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified

BANDANA PANDEY,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Bandana Pandey Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax , W/O Shri Shyam Chandra V. Range-1, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pandey, 29-B, Betihata South, Awas Vikas Colony, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan:Atopb4997J (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash to the tune of Rs. 16,75,000/- in violation of Section 269SS of the 1961 Act. The assessee did not submitted any reply/explanation to the AO in response to SCN dated 04.04.2016. One more notice was issued by AO , and that too remained un-complied with. The assessee despite two opportunities provided by the AO, did not submit

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

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor

BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

cash deposits of Rs.16,45,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Apart from this, the AO also added a sum of Rs.75,594/- to the total income of the assessee under