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

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

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, 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. 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

M/S PSP TRADING PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) was not replied,\nsubsequently, physical verification was done by the verification unit. The verification\nwas made by an inspector of the Verification Unit, which reported that the Company\ncould not be found at the given location, relevant portion of the assessment order is\nreproduced as under;\n\"4. In order to get the confirmation, notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4,98,11,922/- were made\nhave not filed their returns of income. The Learned AO also issued notice\nunder section 133(6) of the Act, but only one party replied. Finally, the\nLearned AO treated the said purchases as unproved and\nunsubstantiated purchases and added the same to the income of the\nassessee.\n2.2. In the appellate proceedings

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

bogus claims, he disallowed said expenditure of Rs. 2.08 crores invoking section 40A(3) Commissioner was of opinion that in essence Assessing Officer had disputed expenditure claimed by assessee and indirectly applied section 37 He was of opinion that not entire expenditure which was under cloud but profit element embedded therein should be brought to tax and, thus, limited disallowance

SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

purchasing a huge volume of agricultural product from agriculturists. As a result, the disallowance of' 16,55,900/­ from out of total expenses claim remain totally arbitrary without any proof of bogus payment and the payments are not for the exceptional & unavoidable circumstances and also not for the business exigencies. The only point for deciding against the appellant that

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

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

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

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

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

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

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

purchases and allowability of the same under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The chances of such purchases/expenses being bogus is high, considering the fact that in related sister concern of M/s Balkrishana Bhalotia Construction Private Limited (BBCPL) and joint venture partner, non existing creditors’ balances of more than Rs.9 crores were offered by the assessee, and has been

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

4 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Balkrishna Bhalotia Construction Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly the income of the assessee chargeable to tax is calculated as Rs. 12,17,02,032/- (8% of Rs. 152,12,75,394/-). It is clarified here that all deduction allowable under the provisions of sections 30 to 38 shall be deemed to have already been given full effect

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

purchases and allowability of the same under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The chances of such purchases/expenses being bogus is high and the amount may be substantially higher than the credit balances admitted by the assessee to be non-existent and offered for taxation. This lack of enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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.

section 147 of the IT Act 1961. The notice u//s 148 has been issued after getting approval from competent authorities.” 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