BBCPL-SKPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

142(1) along with the questionnaire on 2 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 BBCPL- SKPL (JV) 31.01.2020. The assessment proceeding remained dormant. The jurisdiction from ACIT, Circle-2, Begusarai to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna was transferred by ld. PCIT-1, Patna on 13.01.2021 by exercising the powers under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

BBCPL-RCPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

142(1) along with the questionnaire on 31.01.2020. The assessment proceeding remained dormant. The jurisdiction from ACIT, Circle-2, Begusarai to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna was transferred by ld. PCIT-1, Patna on 13.01.2021 by exercising the powers under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued two questionnaires

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

142(1) on 12.02.2021 and 14.02.2021. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, photostat copy of all impounded documents were handed over to the assessee on 18.02.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter framed the assessment order on 24.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has rejected the book result of the assessee and estimated the income at 8% of the gross receipts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus commission income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in which he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted purchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus commission income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in which he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted purchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchase,\nfictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was\nidentified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific\nadverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not\njustified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the\naudit report.\n2.1.4.3. The Id AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while\nframing the assessment under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

142(1) passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 on 30.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.4,34,69,370/-. As stated earlier the AO was in receipt of information from the Director of Income-tax (I&CI), Bhopal. In this report, ITO (I&Cl) investigated huge cash deposits made in name of Anand Agrawal, Ashish Agrawal and Amit Purohit. These persons

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

bogus is unwarranted, unjustified misleading the facts. Since the sundry creditors amounting to 2,37,71,018.00 is not related to only for this Asstt. Yr. 2015-16. As because it includes 1,13, 20,437/- for earlier yrs. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as the appellant

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

purchased the agricultural produce from the\nassessee. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the aforesaid\nstatement given by Shri Ram Prakash Rai and also noted that the said\nstatement was given by Shri Ram Prakash Rai at the instance of the assessee.\nThe Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had failed to establish that\nthe aforesaid income shown

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

3 I.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel 4. After receiving the reasons, the assessee filed objections stating that no such transactions to have been entered by her with M/s Ayaan Commercial Private Limited, or its associate companies nor any transactions of Rs. 5740517/- has been entered into during the year. However, the ld. Assessing Officer after replying

PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished