UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW V. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 743/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the U.P. Government Employees Welfare against the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, which confirmed various additions and penalties imposed by the AO under sections 143(3), 271AAC(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were primarily concerned with the additions made to the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash credits and other liabilities, which the AO attributed to non-compliance and lack of adequate explanation from the assessee regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately considered the sales made by the assessee, which could explain the cash deposits, and thus restored the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313133 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANU CHAURASIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Reason to believe
• Section: 68; 43B; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.743 & 746/LKW/2024 & ITA No. 30/LKW/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC PAN:AAATU0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 15.04.2025 Date of pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH.: These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 and 2.01.2024 in the appeals preferred against the assessment order under section 143(3), the penalty order under section 271AAC(1) and the penalty order under section 270A. The grounds of appeal in these three appeals are as under:- ITA No.743/LKW/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts and Confirm the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of Rs 1,14,62,773/-. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or raise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal.” ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 2 ITA No.746/LKW/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order which is illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the order passed by The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) to added the 30% of Rs.49,46,18,046/- Cash Sales receipts deposited in the bank's current account to the amount of Rs. 14,83,85,414/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 when these have been shown in Profit & Loss Account and declared in I.T.R., it is biased, bad in law because of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add Interest on Unsecured Loan of Rs. 7018853/-. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the Outstanding Liabilities of Rs. 53539675/-. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the 10% on Sundry creditors of Rs. 37217518/- on estimates basis. 6. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the 10% Provision of expenses of Rs 195025/- on estimates basis. 7. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the 15% Expenses of Rs. 16519038 on Estimate basis u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income tax act. 8. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the employees contribution to PF amounting of Rs. 16263564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961. 9. A.O. has erred in imposing interest under section 234A, B, C, D. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or raise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal.” ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts and Confirm the penalty u/s 270A of Rs 2,31,28,015/- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.” 2. Since, the two penalty orders emanate out of the assessment order, the appeal in ITA No. 746/LKW/2024 is being taken up first for disposal. The facts of the case are that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the quantitative details of principle items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods and to verify the cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act through its Secretaries with the main ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 3 object of carrying out, “welfare of employees of State Government” and any other charitable and benevolent object which in the opinion of the Corporation was useful to the employees. It derived income from 161 depots operated by UPGEWC staff and 20 family bazars operated by private partnership in different districts of Uttar Pradesh to sell FMCG and other goods of daily usage to State Government employees on VAT exempted price/discounted price with the object of welfare. Apart from this, as per instructions / orders of the assessee purchases wheat and paddy directly from farmers to provide Minimum Support Price (MSP). It also supplies wheat and rice to different jails in Uttar Pradesh for prisoners. UPGEWC also purchases different goods on behalf of the U.P. State Government Departments and supplies it them. Every depot is an individual cost centre and maintains its own books of accounts and operates its own bank account. They make purchases and sales of goods from the money provided by the head office with specified rules and regulations, which are defined by the head office from time to time and provide trade account summary on monthly basis to the head office, on the basis of which head office maintains its financials. 3. The ld. AO records that, as per the data available with the Department in F.Y. 2016-17, a total amount of Rs. 50,33,97,046/- was deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period, in 70 bank accounts spread across Uttar Pradesh. The assessee was asked to explain these deposits and furnish details. However, due to the volume of the organization and its way of functioning, the assessee was unable to make proper compliance to explain the cash deposits that were made during the demonetization period. It explained its difficulties by pointing out that it had sent follow up letter to all the depots and family bazars but not received replies and therefore, was unable to furnish the details. It furnished copies of purchase ledgers, discount, salary, allowance benefits and wages paid during the year, VAT paid, mandi ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 4 tax paid, handling charges and verification charges. For verification its books of accounts were called for but it was unable to produce its complete set of books before the ld. AO making it difficult for him to verify all the expenses and purchases. It repeatedly requested for adjournments in view of the size of its organization and complexity of organizational structure. In view of the above, the matter was referred for special audit under section 142(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a special audit report was received by the ld. AO on 23.02.2021. In the special audit report, the following points were highlighted; i. The assessee had received Rs. 10,94,58,479/- as unsecured loans from various parties, but no details regarding loan disbursement letters from the parties were provided to the assessee. Therefore, it could not be ascertained whether interest was payable to the above parties or not and what was the periodicity of repayment of loan. Since, the assessee had not furnished the evidences relating to unsecured loans from the U.P. Government and UPSFECC, it could not be ascertained as to whether any interest was payable to the above parties. Hence, an interest amount of Rs. 70,18,853/- were disallowed on this account. ii. The special audit pointed out that other liabilities amounting to Rs. 1,29,22,758/-, vehicle advances of Rs. 1,50,31,864/- and security payable of Rs. 2,55,85,053/- had been outstanding for over ten years. During the said period, nobody had claimed the amount nor had anything been paid by the corporation. Therefore, the ld. AO asked the assessee to show cause why these liabilities should not be added back to its total income and in the absence of reply, he made an addition of Rs. 5,35,39,675/- on this account. iii. As per the special audit, the Corporation at its various depots received cash which is deposited in the bank, amounting to Rs. 49,46,18,046/- during the demonetization period. This included old currency which was received in the depots, on the basis of letter dated 15.11.2016 issued by Sh. Prakash Gupta, Executive Director on the basis ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 5 of Government Notification No. S.O 3408 (E), dated 8.11.2016 issued by Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance. By virtue of this letter, the depots and family bazars had been permitted to accept old currency notes of rupees five hundred and one thousand. The ld. AO opined that the said notification was applicable to consumer cooperative stores operated under the authorization of State or Central Governments but the assessee corporation was not a consumer cooperative store operated under the authorization of the State Government on account of the fact that it was neither open to general public nor registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. As the quantum of old currency notes received and deposited by the depots of the corporation in various banks could not be ascertained during special audit, the ld. AO opined that the receipt of cash in old currency during the demonetization period was violative of the provisions of Notification No. S.O. 3408(E) as family bazars were separated entities not coming under the umbrella of the Corporation and therefore, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the above receipt of cash should not be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and to justify the same with supportive documents. However, no response was received and therefore, the ld. AO added 30 % of the amount of Rs. 49,46,18,046/- i.e. Rs.14,83,85,414/- on estimate basis, as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, 1961. He also brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. iv. The ld. AO noted from the audit report that sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 37,21,75,184/-, including opening credit balances of suppliers that were continuing for past many years and no transactions had occurred in the ledger of such suppliers during the year under audit. Since, the assessee was not able to provide the details with regard to these creditors such as postal addresses account statements, etc., the ld. AO made an estimated disallowance of 10% of the outstanding creditor balance and added the same back to the income of the assessee. ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 6 v. The special audit pointed out that an amount of Rs. 19,50,250/- was claimed as expenses on parties named as M.M. advertising and Adore advertising private limited. However, no statement of account was furnished to the audit team. Since the assessee failed to produce the ledger copies of the above and statement of accounts from the said parties, the ld. AO added the same back to the income of the assessee. vi. The special audit pointed out that the assessee had a TAN for its head office for which TDS returns were filed from time to time. However, TDS compliances at the depots were done by the depots separately on their own TANs. The details of TAN wise reconciliation were not provided to special audit and therefore, the special audit was unable to comment about the deductibility of TDS at the depots and timely compliance thereon. In view of this, the assessee was asked to furnish the relevant details of amounts paid and tax deducted at source and produce copies of challans / evidence of deposits of tax deducted at source into Central Government accounts. However, the assessee failed to comply and therefore, the ld. AO estimated that tax had not been deducted on atleast Rs.5,50,63,460/- rupees worth of payments. Therefore, he made a disallowance of 30% of the same accordingly added back a sum of Rs. 1,65,19,038/-. vii. The ld. AO also observed that there was delayed payment of Employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,62,63,564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,62,63,564/- on this account. Before making such additions, the ld. AO issued show cause notice to the assessee and the assessee requested for a video conference but despite seeking adjournment on the first occasion, the assessee failed to comply even during the video conference and therefore, the ld. AO made the additions as above and computed the loss of the asssessee at Rs. 4,58,29,335/-. The total income to be taxed as per section 115BBE was determined at Rs.14,83,85,414/-. ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 7 4. Aggrieved by these additions, the assessee went in appeal to the NFAC. The assessee submitted a statement of facts alongwith its grounds of appeals which have been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that during the appeal proceedings, the assessee had been given three opportunities of replying and on one occasion had even sought an adjournment but had not actually made any compliance. Therefore, he decided to pass the appeal order ex parte. Going through and reproducing portions of the assessment order in his appeal, the ld. CIT(A) pointed out that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had not responded to his notices and had not furnished any evidence to prove anything to the contrary to the finding of the ld. AO. Since, the assessee had not responded to the appeal notices, it had not discharged its onus to substantiate its claim and therefore, merely making claims in grounds of appeal were not sufficient. The genuineness of the claims had to be proved by providing supporting documentary evidences for substantiation. Since, they were not provided, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Shortly after the passing of the assessment order, the assesee was also issued a show cause notice for the levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect to the addition of Rs. 14,83,85,414/- added to the income of the assessee on estimate basis as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The ld. AO records that despite issue of notices, the assessee did not respond to the notices and was non-responsive. Therefore, quoting from the provisions of section 271AAC(1), the ld. AO on 15.03.2022, levied a penalty of Rs.1,14,62,773/- @ 10% of the unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 6. The assessee went in appeal against this levy of penalty also but hereto the ld. CIT(A) records that it did not make any compliance before him. Accordingly, since he had already confirmed the addition of Rs. 14,83,85,414/- under section 68 of the ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 8 Act, in the absence of any explanation or evidence, he also confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) amounting to Rs.1,14,62,773/-. 7. Following the passing of the order under section 143(3), the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act on account of misc. expenses and other provisions mentioned in his order amounting to Rs.13,07,53,673/- and a show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act was issued for under reporting of income. However, the assessee did not make a response to the ld. AO and therefore, after service of notice through speed post and registered email ID, the ld. AO to save the limitation, decided to levy a penalty of Rs.2,31,28,015/- being 50% of the tax on the under reported income. 8. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed an appeal with the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The appeal order of the ld. CIT(A) is silent on whether he issued notices to the assessee or not during the hearing of this appeal but he records the fact that he had already decided the quantum appeal against the appellant with regard to the aforesaid additions and therefore, he confirmed the penalty @ 2,31,28,015/-. 9. Aggrieved with all these dismissals of its appeals in a summary manner by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. When the appeal was called out for hearing, there was no one present on behalf of the assesee. The Department was represented by Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT DR, who assisted us during the course of appeal. It is seen that during the course of filing the appeal, the assessee had submitted a detailed statement of facts before the ld. CIT(A)in which it had been pointed out as below:- i. The ld. AO had made an addition of an outstanding amount shown in the balance- sheet of Rs. 13,07,53,673/- when these balance-sheet items had already been assessed by the ld. AOs in preceding previous years. ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 9 ii. The ld. AO had added 30% of Rs.49,46,18,046/- as unexplained cash credit when these amounts represented cash sales which had duly been declared in the profit and loss account and in the ITR. iii. The ld. AO had made an addition to liabilities outstanding of Rs. 5,35,39,675/- without there being any change in the status of liabilities. When these figures were lying in the balance-sheet, it could not be presumed by the ld. AO that the same were not returnable. iv. That the ld. AO erred in disallowing total sundry creditors when the demanded data had been provided to him and he had ignored that data and pasted the observations of the special auditor in the assessment order. It was submitted in the said statement of fact that the interpretation of the Gazette of India Notification 2653 dated 8.11.2016 is different from the interpretation and explanation given in para no. 4.3 of the assessment order. v. It was submitted that since the cash that was deposited in the bank account were the actual cash sales, therefore, there could no additions under section 68 in respect of those matters. It was further submitted that the ld. AO had erred in not calling for third party confirmation from the banks relating to deposit of old and new currency and the ld. AO could only make the addition under section 68 if he had a reason to believe that the entries were not genuine. However, the ld. AO had not made any such enquiry and therefore, section 68 could not apply to the facts of the case. vi. It was further submitted that there was no TDS non-compliance. All TDS have been deposited within the due date and the TDS returns had been filed. vii. The addition of Rs. 1,62,63,564/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to ESI / Provident Fund were also questioned stating that the assessee had made the deposits before the due date of filing the return and therefore, should get the benefit of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 10 10. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is fairly evident that the assessee has not made proper compliance before the ld. AO so as to satisfy the ld. AO that the amounts that had been deposited in its bank accounts were as a result of sales made in cash and therefore explained deposits in the bank account. We observe that the assessee was given permission by its controlling authorities to accept specified bank notes, in view of the Government notification allowing consumer cooperative stores to accept such notes. We further observe that a mis-interpretation of entitlements as to whether specified bank notes could be accepted or not by the assessee, may invite penal action of a different nature, but would not fundamentally change the nature of the cash deposits, if the deposits were made on account of sales. We notice that a special audit was conducted of the assessee and its units. The ld. AO has not brought any adverse communication on record from the special auditor to the extent that the sales made by the assessee were not made or that the assessee did not have the stocks which it claimed to have sold. In these circumstances, in the absence of sale being disproved, the cash deposits made in the bank account on account of such sale may not attract the provisions of section 68. Furthermore, violation of the GOI guidelines for acceptance of SBNs would not convert the receipts into unexplained credits u/s 68, unless they were in fact, unexplained. 11. In any case, the ld. AO is completely unjustified in bringing 30% of such unexplained credits to tax under section 68. If at all amounts were unexplained then it was those amounts that were identified to be unexplained which were to be brought to tax. There cannot be any addition under section 68 on an estimated basis. It, therefore, appears that the matter of whether the deposits into bank account were explained by cash sales has not been looked into by the ld. AO and therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the ld. AO for a fresh look after considering the sales of the assessee corporation. Of course, we appreciate the ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 11 fact that the ld. AO was constrained due to lack of compliance by the assessee. We, therefore, instruct the assessee to make due compliance before the ld. AO so as to explain the deposits in its various bank accounts with reference to the sales made by it and the stock held by it to explain such sales. Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. On the issue of outstanding liabilities, we note that the mere fact that the liabilities were lying in the balance-sheet for a long period of time does not give rise to an assumption that the liabilities had ceased to exist. Accordingly, addition on this aspect could not be made without first establishing that the liabilities had ceased to exist. We, therefore, restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO and direct the assessee to produce the evidence to the extent that the liabilities continued to exist as on the date of the balance-sheet. Ground No. 4 is also accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No. 5 pertains to disallowance of 10% of sundry creditors of Rs.3,72,17,518/- on estimate basis. While we observe that the ld. AO was constrained in not receiving the complete information from the assessee, we observe that non- compliance can invite several penalties but not be an excuse to make an estimated addition on an issue of sundry creditors. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to produce the details before the ld. AO so as to enable him to verify the authenticity of sundry creditors. Ground No. 5 is also accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. With regard to addition of interest on unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 70,18,853/- we note that the unsecured loans includes loans from the U.P. Government that are interest free given for the VRS by the employees. The assessee has submitted that it has provided all the related documents with the aforesaid replies and that the calculation of interest on loan from the U.P. State Government and U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Limited has been ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 12 provided with the replies. It is also been submitted that these loans are returnable. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO so as to verify details relating to loans and interest before making any disallowance on this count. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Similarly, we notice that additions have also been made on estimate basis under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act on account of a presumption of non- compliance with TDS provisions and also for failure to provide details on provisions for advertising expense. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore these matters back to the file of the ld. AO and direct the assessee to produce necessary evidences before the ld. AO. Accordingly, ground nos. 6 and 7 are allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground No. 8 relates to the addition made on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The law on this subject is now well defined; these deposits have to be made before the due dates under the respective laws. Since the assessee has not brought any evidence on record or made any such claim or that it had paid the amounts as prescribed under the relevant acts, the amounts are prima facie held to be disallowable. However, in case these amounts have been paid within the timelines as specified under the respective acts, the assessee may bring the same to the knowledge of the ld. AO during the course of the remanded proceedings. Ground no. 8 is accordingly decided. 17. Ground no. 9 relates to the imposing of interest under section 234 A B & C. As the matter is being sent back to the file of the ld. AO, it is not necessary to decide this issue at the moment. 18. Ground no. 10 is general in nature and does not require a decision. 19. In view of the above, considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an ex parte manner, we restore the matter back to the ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 13 file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment. We also direct the assessee to make due compliances before the ld. AO to enable him to arrive at a correct assessment of the assessee’s income. As the matter is being reverted, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes. 20. With regard to appeal in ITA No. 30/LKW/2025 on the subject of levy of penalty under section 270A, since the assessment order has been restored to the file of the ld. AO, the levy of penalty for under reporting of income before the income is determined would be premature. Accordingly we set aside the penalty currently levied with liberty to the ld. AO to take appropriate action subject to the result of the assessment which has been restored to his file. Accordingly, 30/LKW/2025 is held to be allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Similarly, since we have held that an addition under section 68 on estimate basis is not maintainable and we have restored the matter back to the file of the ld. AO to examine the cash deposits in the bank account with reference to the cash sale of the assessee, levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) at this stage is premature and unwarranted. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty. Of course, the ld. AO will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings if the need so arises upon completion of the assessment. Appeal in ITA No. 743/LKW/2024 is therefore held to be allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In the result appeals in ITA No.746/LKW/2024, ITA No.30/LKW/2025 and ITA No. 743/LKW/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.04.2025 in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/04/2025 Sh ITA Nos.143 & 746/LKW/2024 ITA No.30/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare 14 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CITDR , ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S. "