HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM
In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No
ITA 357/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C
64,576/-. The assessee declared stamp duty value of the said property at Rs.43,17,000/-. It is the case of the revenue that in spite of requests made to the assessee for submission of proof of cost of acquisition, proof of improvement, sale deed and reason for not taking stamp duty value as per his consideration for calculation
