M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

Cash and Bank balance of Rs. 3,54,349.50/- and loans and advances of Rs. 5,05,22,357/- and miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 70,800/- have been shown. The taxable income shown in the income tax return is meagre amount. The date of birth of share applicant is as per PAN CARD 21.08.2008.These figures of the balance sheet, shows

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

unexplained cash generation, or parallel books of account, and yet proceeded to reject the corresponding sales. The appellate authority held that such an approach was internally inconsistent, illogical, and arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment proceedings. It was observed that in the absence of any finding of undisclosed purchases or cash flow, the rejection of sales alone

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

unexplained cash generation, or parallel books of account, and yet proceeded to reject the corresponding sales. The appellate authority held that such an approach was internally inconsistent, illogical, and arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment proceedings. It was observed that in the absence of any finding of undisclosed purchases or cash flow, the rejection of sales alone

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

cash deposits during the demonetization period, which was deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer added to the total income of the assessee. The total assessed income was taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. He further observed that the balance sheet of the assessee

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

unexplained cash generation, or parallel\nbooks of account, and yet proceeded to reject the corresponding\nsales. The appellate authority held that such an approach was\ninternally inconsistent, illogical, and arbitrary, and contrary to the\nsettled principles governing assessment proceedings. It was observed\nthat in the absence of any finding of undisclosed purchases or cash\nflow, the rejection of sales alone

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

unexplained cash generation, or parallel\nbooks of account, and yet proceeded to reject the corresponding\nsales. The appellate authority held that such an approach was\ninternally inconsistent, illogical, and arbitrary, and contrary to the\nsettled principles governing assessment proceedings. It was observed\nthat in the absence of any finding of undisclosed purchases or cash\nflow, the rejection of sales alone

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

unexplained cash generation, or parallel\nbooks of account, and yet proceeded to reject the corresponding\nsales. The appellate authority held that such an approach was\ninternally inconsistent, illogical, and arbitrary, and contrary to the\nsettled principles governing assessment proceedings. It was observed\nthat in the absence of any finding of undisclosed purchases or cash\nflow, the rejection of sales alone

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of 1.T. Act, 1961 treating the said amount as 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

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

bogus Kolkata based shell companies." That reason recorded above like “………….Thus, the loan taken by the assessee ie. M/s Shanker Construction is to be treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. In this regard, enquiry was carried out on ITBA, e-filling portal and ITD database

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman

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

unexplained sundry creditors (list provided by the assessee and kept on record) amounting to Rs.90249028/- in total. It is clear that the creditors related to expenditure involving purchase of goods/services by the assessee during the year or in earlier years. The Assessing Officer failed to call for the ledger accounts of the party and examine the nature of expenditure/credits

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

unexplained and non- existent sundry creditors (list provided by the assessee and kept on record) amounting to Rs. 10080219/- in total. It is clear that the creditors related to expenditure involving purchase of goods/services by the assesses during the year or in earlier years. It is also noticed that the sundry creditors' balance as on 31.03.2017 (Rs.66949687/- ) has substantially reduced

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/-“

credits for unsecured loan taken by the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO noted that assessee had purchased a piece of land for Rs.70,91,774/-. For the source of this investment, entire amount was shown to be arranged as loans and gifts for the purpose of making this investment. Out of all the loans and gifts