G D MOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 307, 308 & 309/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 G D Mother Educational Society,…..…….……Appellant Akharaghat Road, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aaaag3023A] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Near Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 25, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 6 ITA No. 308/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2019-2020) G D Mother Educational Society 8. The assessee has filed application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal. The assessee has sought to raise two additional grounds of appeal in each year. The application of the assessee reads as under

G D MOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 307, 308 & 309/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 G D Mother Educational Society,…..…….……Appellant Akharaghat Road, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aaaag3023A] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Near Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 25, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 6 ITA No. 308/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2019-2020) G D Mother Educational Society 8. The assessee has filed application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal. The assessee has sought to raise two additional grounds of appeal in each year. The application of the assessee reads as under

G D MOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 307, 308 & 309/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 G D Mother Educational Society,…..…….……Appellant Akharaghat Road, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aaaag3023A] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Near Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 25, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 6 ITA No. 308/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2019-2020) G D Mother Educational Society 8. The assessee has filed application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal. The assessee has sought to raise two additional grounds of appeal in each year. The application of the assessee reads as under

KANHAIYA KUMAR,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), BIHARSHARIF

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.560/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

additions of Rs.53,62,478/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. For that the inadvertent mistake of declaring income from business as income from other sources may be directed to be corrected. 8. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

PAWAN KUMAR, PROP. LIFE LINE RICE MILLS ,BEGUSARAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), , BEGUSARAI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

condonation of the said delay. 2.0 The present appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.12.2021 (AY 2012-13) and 19.12.2021 (AY 2013-14). 2.1 Aggrieved with the action

PAWAN KUMAR, PROP. LIFE LINE RICE MILLS ,BEGUSARAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), , BEGUSARAI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

condonation of the said delay. 2.0 The present appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.12.2021 (AY 2012-13) and 19.12.2021 (AY 2013-14). 2.1 Aggrieved with the action

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case

MADHURI DEVI,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, The Learned Assessing Officer, being ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa (Here in after called the "AO") has erred in Assessing the appellant on a total Income of Rs 7001665/- as against

RAJ KISHORE UPADHYAY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, SIWAN, SIWAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

addition made in the quantum order has been deleted. Your honor is hence requested to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and list the case for hearing on merit.” 1.1 Considering the reasons advanced for the said delay, this appeal is admitted for adjudication after condoning of the said delay. 2. This appeal arises from order dated

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

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

Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Delhi dated 3rd January 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17. 1 Rajesh Singh 2. The appeal is time barred by 186 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT dated 3rd September, 2024 in support of condonation of delay

PATNA SMART CITY LIMITED,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PTN-W-(21)(91), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

addition of ₹42.28 crores again in respect of high liabilities as compared to low income/receipts (issue number 3 of the show cause notice) is made on the ground that the forfeiture of bank guarantee has been shown under the head liabilities. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned

MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in calculation

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

condone the delay and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹8,02,45,293/-, which was in violation to the Provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication. 2. These two appeals emanate from the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Act’), dated 01.01.2024 (ITA No. 336/Pat/2024) and 02.01.2024 (ITA No.337/Pat/2024). 2.1 For the sake of convenience ITA No. 336/Pat/2024

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD4(5), PATNA

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication. 2. These two appeals emanate from the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Act’), dated 01.01.2024 (ITA No. 336/Pat/2024) and 02.01.2024 (ITA No.337/Pat/2024). 2.1 For the sake of convenience ITA No. 336/Pat/2024

RAM KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, 3(5), SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Income Tax (Appeals), Patna on 28.11.23. The appellant in view of the provisions as contained in the act was required to file the present appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. Thus, there is a delay of approximately 154 days in the filing of the present appeal. 5. That it is respectfully submitted that

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

addition of a sum of ₹39,63,956/- on account of capital gains, without considering the facts of the case and relevant clauses of the Development Agreement. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the delay and considering the assessee’s age of about 78+ years condoned the delay

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income