RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENT CIR MZF, MUZAFFARPUR

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

8,96,750/- being bogus\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit

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

8,96,750/- being 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

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

8,96,750/- being 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

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

8\n2.1.4.1. It was further submitted that the Special Audit Report\nmerely contained general observations and expressions of doubt,\nusing phrases such as “no conclusive evidence” and “appears to be”,\nand did not record any definitive or categorical finding holding the\nsales, purchases, commission income, or expenses to be bogus or\nfictitious. The assessee further submitted that a special audit

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\nassessee are dismissed

8\n2.1.4.1. It was further submitted that the Special Audit Report\nmerely contained general observations and expressions of doubt,\nusing phrases such as “no conclusive evidence” and “appears to be”,\nand did not record any definitive or categorical finding holding the\nsales, purchases, commission income, or expenses to be bogus or\nfictitious. The assessee further submitted that a special audit

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

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, the Learned CIT (A) allowed the\nappeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee submitted all the\nevidences

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

8% out of contractual receipts of Rs. 192619348/-, amounting to Rs.15409548/- which is only marginally higher than the business profits (including Rs.1 crore of undisclosed income) declared by the assessee. Books of accounts of the assessee has been rejected, by the AO within the meaning of Section 145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) instead of Section

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

8% out of contractual receipts of Rs. 124803177/-, amounting to Rs.9984,254/- which is only marginally higher than the net profit declared by the assessee. Interest income of Rs.2509727/- has also been assessed. Books of accounts of the assessee has been rejected by the AO within the meaning of Section 145(3), however, assessment has been framed

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

8% out of contractual receipts of Rs.1521275394/-, amounting to Rs.121702032/- which is only marginally higher than the net profit declared by the assessee. Books of accounts of the assessee has 7 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Balkrishna Bhalotia Construction Pvt. Ltd. been rejected by the AO within the meaning of Section 145(3), however, assessment has been framed

THE I.T.O., BHAGALPUR vs. M/S SILK CENRE, BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 210/Pat./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Silk Centre, Ward-1(3), Hazari Sah Lane, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur Bhagalpur-812004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfs0591F Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Patna.

Section 254 of the Act clearly lays down that the CIT(A) may make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or may direct the AO to make further enquiry (through Remand Report), but overlooking the fact that numerous notices were issued, and opportunities were provided but Assessee/Assessee’s AR resorted to complete non-compliance & even after seeking adjournment

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

bogus payment. Then, the disallowance of 16,55,900/­ and its confirmation by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) become hypothetical, imaginary and against the very purpose of the provision of the Act. As such the addition by disallowing , 16,55,900/­ on payment in cash to the agent is not legal, justified & proper. Hence, the same

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

8. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged 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

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

8. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged 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

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

8. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus purchase. Re-assessment order passed on 30-12- 2016 assessing income u/s. 147 of the Act at Rs.75,18,15,733/-. 4. Thereafter, the ld. AO carried out proceedings u/s.154 of the Act for rectifying the mistakes apparent on record/made while completing the assessment for A.Y 2010-11 u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 11-03-2013. During

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

section 44AD and by stating so the representative of the assessee has argued that the total income disclosed by the assessee is equal to 15.75% of the total receipt of Rs. 20,82,626/-. The return of income and the computation sheet enclosed with the paper book and placed as page…… to …… of P.B. established this fact. The assessing officer

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor