BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

4. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 34,05,000/- & Rs.30,50,000/- i.e. government value relevant to two property adopted for ascertaining capital gain by Ld. assessing officer in passing his order ignoring & setting aside facts of presence of lower actual sale consideration

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

4. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 34,05,000/- & Rs.30,50,000/- i.e. government value relevant to two property adopted for ascertaining capital gain by Ld. assessing officer in passing his order ignoring & setting aside facts of presence of lower actual sale consideration

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the 28-05-2025. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 27/07/2025. That I, due to illness irregular to open the e-mail and not showing I.T. Portal. As and when

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the merit of the case, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer appeals, due to that there was a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded