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)

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that was levied upon the assessee vide the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer dated 25.01.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the learned

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

D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.7.2018 of CIT(A) arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because the learned Commissioner of Income

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)

d. Perquisite disallowed Rs.58,496/- e. Interest on Refund Rs.5,483/- f. Total additions Rs.10,89,493/- g. Assessed Income Rs.78,55,063/- Thus it could be seen that AO disallowed deduction u/s. 80GGA to the tune of Rs.8,54,190/- and deduction u/s. 80GGC were also disallowed to the tune of Rs.1,71,324/- by AO while framing assessment

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(A) both dated 10.10.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices were sent through RPAD as well email on the email

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(A) both dated 10.10.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices were sent through RPAD as well email on the email

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)

u/s 271D , of a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted in contravention/violation of provisions of Section 269SS. The AO levied penalty of Rs. 16,75,000/- against the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 271D read with Section 269SS, as the assessee did not furnished any details whatsoever before

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 21/11/2022 passed by NFAC Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2004-05. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation. The assessee has given the following reasons

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

D E R The appeals in and ITA No.126/VNS/2023 have been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13, confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) in quantum proceedings and also in penalty proceedings. ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 2 of 9 2.0 The brief

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

D E R The appeals in and ITA No.126/VNS/2023 have been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13, confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) in quantum proceedings and also in penalty proceedings. ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 2 of 9 2.0 The brief

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

D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.7.2021 of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice of hearing was duly sent by RPAD and also served through email. However

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

D E R :-2-: PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 10.3.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessments passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

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

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

M/S BANARAS SWARN KALA KENDRA PVT. LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Ck-65/70A, Bari Piari, V. Income Tax, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Central Circle, Aaykar Bhawan, M A Road, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Pan:Aaccb1623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is being initiated separately on this point. (Addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/-) That is how the addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/- was made by the AO, which was the first addition made by the AO , w.r.t. differential in value of stock based on seized material vis-à-vis stock found

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR vs. ASHUTOSH KUMAR DUBEY,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Sri. Ashutosh Kumar Dubey, Circle-1, Gorakhpur, Aaykar A.S.H. Bhawan, Bhagwanpur, Bhawan, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Agtpd9273B (Revenue) (Respondent) Revenue By: A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.01.2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred