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.

natural justice are clearly breached as ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself by adventuring into a fault finding mission, rather than acting as an adjudicator and/or investigator to unravel the truth in order to compute correct income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee as per mandate of the provisions of the 1961 Act. This appellate order passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01, VARANASI vs. PERFECT TECNO COUNSULTANTS PVT. LTD. , VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, V. N-1/65-A, Narrotam Nagar Colony, M A Road, Varanasi- Nagwa, Lanka Varanasi-221005,U.P. 221002,U.P. Pan:Aagcp3236N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sh. Amalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Assessee By: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023 O R D E R

natural justice , as is also required keeping in view provisions of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act, and Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules. The case of the assessee was selected for framing complete scrutiny assessment through CASS with reasons mainly “cash deposit during demonetization period” .The assessee did not co-operated before ld. AO during

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO has discussed both these additions in details in his assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act (Documentation Identification No. 20131332135). The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO has discussed both these additions in details in his assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act (Documentation Identification No. 20131332135). The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C.,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO has discussed both these additions in details in his assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act (Documentation Identification No. 20131332135). The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO has discussed both these additions in details in his assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act (Documentation Identification No. 20131332135). The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO has discussed both these additions in details in his assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act (Documentation Identification No. 20131332135). The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order

RAGHAWENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Late Raghawendra Pratap Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income L/H Geepta Singh (Wife), Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi C-53-54, Shivlok Tower, Lanka Varanasi-221005 Pan-Ahbps8614A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2023

section 68 is wholly erroneous and accordingly the addition of Rs. 10,92,465/- deserves to be deleted by this Hon'ble court. 9. BECAUSE the ex-parte assessment order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the CIT(A) is bad and due to lack of effective and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 10. BECAUSE the order appealed against

SURENDRA NATH SINGH,,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Surendra Nath Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Mahuabagh, Ward-3(5), Ghazipur Ghazipur-233001 Pan-Bphps5975K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, Ca Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2022 O R D E R

natural justice. 3. Because the learned lower authorities are not justified in accepting past savings at Rs.6,00,000 only as against Rs. 8,03,900 and treating Rs.2,03,900 as unexplained / undisclosed income ignoring that the assessee had no bank account in the past and is a practicing advocate since 1976-77 and has also substantial income from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

68, 69, 69A, 698, 69C and 69D of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby the provision of section 1158BE is also inapplicable. The Appellant is unable to understand that under which notification or circular or any other publication the Ld. Assessing Officer has treated the currency deposited in the bank is liable to tax u/s 69/69A of the Act. That

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

natural justice.” 5. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the original assessment under section 143(3) was passed by the AO on 28th December, 2016, whereby the addition of Rs. 61,42,646/- was made on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking the provisions of section 68

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

natural justice.” 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the original assessment under section 143(3) was passed by the AO on 28th December, 2016, whereby the addition of Rs. 61,47,400 /- was made on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking the provisions of section 68

SANJAI KUMAR GUPTA,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2010-11 Shrisanjai Kumar Gupta The Income Tax Officer Ismailpur, Gorakhpur- V. Ward 2(2), Gorakhpur-273001, 273005, U.P. U.P. Pan: Aiwpg7908H (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 were not fulfilled by the assessee as the assessee could not prove creditworthiness of the lenders as well genuineness of the transaction. The ld. Sr. DR would rely on the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. The brief facts of the case are that the case

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,250/- levied by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271C read with Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “ the AO”), vide penalty order dated 31.03.2019 in Order No. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT ITBA/PNL/F/15B(3)/2018-19/1015613185(1) . We have heard both the parties in Open Court through physical hearing mode. 2. The grounds

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment