ITAT Patna Bench

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs ITO WARD 4(2), PATNA

Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)

RUBY DEVI,BETTIAH vs ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

RUBY DEVI,BETTIAH vs ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

RUBY DEVI,BETTIAH vs ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

RUBY DEVI,BIHAR vs ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

MS. NAYDU KUMARI,MADHEPURA vs DC/AC CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

OM PRAKASH SHA,NALANDA vs ITO, WARD, 2(4), BIHARSHARIF, BIHARSHARIF

SANJEEV KUMAR AZAD,DANAPUR vs ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

VIVID COLORS PVT. LTD.,BIHAR, PATNA vs DCIT-CIRCLE 2, PATNA, BIHAR, PATNA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR vs NANDKUMAR PRASAD SAH, SARAIYGANJ ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

BIR BABU PANDEY,GOPALGANJ vs ITO WARD 2(4), SIWAN

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has been carrying on the business under the name and style SHRI RAM PETROLEUM of petroleum products as authorised retail distributor of Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited under Explosive License 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

ANISHA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,PATNA vs CIT (EXEMPTION), PATNA

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

M/S AVINASH KUMAR,PATNA vs CIT A, PATNA

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)