PRAKASH GUPTA,GOPALGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay, however a submission stated to be an affidavit I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. has been filed in which it is stated that during the demonetisation period, total sum of ₹ 10,69,000/- was deposited into the SBI account and the cash

SMT. RANJU KUMARI,JAMUI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also passing an ex-parte order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard thereby confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 2,62,77,730/- for alleged unexplained cash deposited

ARPANA JHA,BETTIAH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH, BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 135/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arpana Jha,……………….……….………..………Appellant C/O. Namo Nath Jha, Banuchhapar, Sant Kabir Road, Near K.P.M. School, Bihar-845438 [Pan:Ahmpj6389G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(5), Bettiah Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and she is proprietor of Aparna Textile Agency and involved in trading as well as authorized agent of M/s Shera Hoseiry. The assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee has been reopened to verify

ARVIND KUMAR RUNGTA,BHAGALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), BHAGALPUR, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay\nis for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n3.\nThe only issue raised by the assessee in various grounds of appeal is\nagainst the confirmation of addition of ₹8 lacs by the Id. CIT (A) as\nmade by the Id. AO u/s 69A of the Act on account

MAHMOOD ALAM,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-5, PATNA, PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the cash deposit of Rs. 47,75,000/- should

AMAR NATH SINGH,ARA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

condone the delay and the appeal is taking for adjudication. 3 Amar Nath Singh 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.01.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 5,03,010/- as per information with the income tax department. The assessee had deposited cash

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

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

cash deposits of ₹79,60,305/- in the assessee's bank accounts, including ₹18,59,000/- during the demonetization period. The AO treated these deposits as unexplained and added them to the total income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

ARJUN KUMAR SAH,VAISHALI vs. ITO WARD- 1(3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

cash deposited in Indusind Bank of Rs. 75,78,167/- other than demonetization as an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Before the ld. AO there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO has added the income

ASIF IQUBAL,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in treating the deposits during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A without looking into the debit entries in the account and transaction in the previous

SAVITRI DEVI,BHOJPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹1,28,82,750/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay of 230 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

LALBABU PRASAD,SITAMARHI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA

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

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 order passed by the authorities below are bad in law and fact. 2. For that the learned Addl. CIT(Appeal) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte only

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

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is running a wholesale business as her proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Gwalior Industries. The assessee filed her return of income electronically showing aggregate income of Rs.6,48,570/-. The case was selected

ATLANTIS MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

delay of 30 days.\n7. That the reason appeal turned from face to face to faceless mode and all She\nnotices were sent on portal which was not seen by the appellant and the non\nappearance was neither deliberate nor willful.”\n1.1 Considering the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, the\ndelay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

condone the delay in filling the appeal and taking for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during financial year 2014-15 the assessee had deposited cash