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

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.

condone the delays and admit both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 3. ITA No.356/Pat/2025 - The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee in his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declared long-term capital gains

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the Initiation of reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer, Ward - 6(2), Patna is without any valid Jurisdiction and as such the assessment order

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the Initiation of reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer, Ward - 6(2), Patna is without any valid Jurisdiction and as such the assessment order

ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

long-term capital gain. The assessee was asked to submit explanation. The assessee stated in its written reply that it sold the script of M/s. Kailash Auto and on that transaction, it claimed the exemption on LTCG. Being not satisfied, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.15,11,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed

PANCHAM PAL,PATNA vs. I.T.O, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 7/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pancham Pal. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the A.O. 2. For that

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

condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. (b) Whether capital gain on compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is leviable in his hands or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically on 15.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,53,190/-.The assessee

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

long term capital gain arising out of compensation against the land acquisition. The addition was based on the basis of information received from District Land Acquisition Officer which is a land enforcing agency / department and as such the case is covered under exceptions clause specified in Board's letter bearing F. No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 20.08.2018. (iii) Any other grounds

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

long term capital gains of Rs. 36,76,169/-. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone a delay

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & 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. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 as passed u/s 143(3) read

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. I.T.A. No.: 392/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar. 2. No grounds of appeal have been filed. However, in Form No. 35, the assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A): “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 31.12.2017 showing an income of 2 Shivendu Shekhar Singh Rs.3,54,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

long term capital\ngain and taxing the same as capital gain, notwithstanding the fact that the\nappellant has given sufficient documentary evidences before the Id assessing\nofficer to substantiate the claim of cost of improvement.\n10. For that the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Id.\nassessing officer, without given sufficient opportunity, has erred in estimating

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, 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 was reported to be a non-filer. Information was received from Insight portal which suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The assessee sold immovable property valued at Rs.84,23,000/-, received interest on securities amounting

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts. 2. For that the claim of the Learned CIT(A) that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing

SUNITA AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on this issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee, Smt. Sunita Agarwal, is the wife of Shri Anil Agarwal, filed her return of income for AY 2015-16 on 02.02.2016 declared total income of Rs. 3,58,580/-. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording reasons of reopening

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

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) For that the Grounds of Appeal hereto are without prejudice to one mother. 2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not giving proper time

RAVI BHUSHAN VERMA,BEGUSARAI vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

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

Long term capital gain, all the grounds of appeal are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and disposed off as under: 4.1. In this case, the appellant submitted that during the A.Y.2019-20, the appellant had sold his ancestral property along with his four brothers/cousins/nephew and the total consideration for the whole of the property was Rs.66

CHANCHAL KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.241/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Chanchal Kumar……………………………… …………………....Appellant S/O Sharma Nand Singh, Chak Musallahpur, Chai Tola Gali, Near Cooperative Bank, Mahendru, Patna, Bihar- 800006.. [Pan: Cenpk3190J] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Patna…….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2023 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration & The Case Was Reopened U/S 147. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.81,66,750/- On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

long term capital gain. I.T.A. No.241/Pat/2025 Chanchal Kumar 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear or effectively represent its case. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 590 days