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

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

5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR as well as relevant material on record. The dispute in the present appeal is only with respect to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the addition of Rs. 3,11,649/- which was made by the CIT(A) being enhancement

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)

5 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi v. ACIT added by the AO in the hands of the assessee as the same were not declared by the assessee in its return of income filed with the Revenue . The penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO against the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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)

5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Bandana Pandey v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Gorakhpur deposit or aggregate amount of such loan or deposit , is twenty thousand or more. The violation/contravention of Section 269SS leads to levy of penalty u/s 271D , of a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.125/VNS/2023: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.125/VNS/2023: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. From the perusal of the assessment order which has been passed in pursuance of order of the ITAT, setting aside the quantum issue of determination of capital gain before the ld. AO, 3 Shri Gorakh Nath Yadav has not specified any charge as to under which limb he is initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Even

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

section 144 of the Act on 23.12.2017, whereby the income of the assessee was assessed by applying the net profit rate @ 8% on the total deposits in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,08,62,500/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.8.69 lakhs as against the returned

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

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

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b)of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following

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

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

section 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves right to add alter or amend any ground which may be taken at the time of hearing.” 2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee despite the notice of hearing was issued through RPAD as well Email at the Email ID given in Form

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

5. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed therefore, we do not have privilege to hear the assessee. However, we find that the assessee has been taking a consistent stand right from the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) that the amount advanced to the sister concerned