GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay of form no 10B. 4) For that, as per record delay of 1260 days and due to this reason, petition was rejected by authority 5) For that, in this year assessee has filed form no 10B electronically on 13/04/2022 6) For that, due to unavailability of electronically filed 10B, during assessment process, Ld. A.O. has disallowed every

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 11. Since the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal on merit, therefore, ideal situation is to restore all these issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit. But a perusal of the assessment order would reveal that it is also

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

M/S GEETANJALI ESTATE PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 9 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Geetanjali Estate Pvt. Ltd. 9. On due consideration of the record, we find that Shri N.K. Sinha, Advocate, attended the proceeding undertaken under section 263 by the ld. CIT. After the revisional order passed by the ld. CIT, ld. Assessing Officer has commenced the assessment proceeding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE PATNA, PATNA vs. CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYAY NAGAR

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.342/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit(Exemption), Patna..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Chanakya National Law University, Nayay Nagar.............……...…..…..Respondent Mithapur, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Aaajc0528M] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. K. Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 1.1 In This Case, There Were Primarily Two Issues Which Were Before The Assessing Officer, Namely, The Issue Of Delayed Filing Of Form 10 Which Was Required U/S 11(2) R.W.S. 13(9) Of The Act & Secondly, The Issue Of An Amount Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Which Was Added As Technically Being A Receipt Which Had Not Been Offered For Tax By The Assessee. Needless To Say, The Amount Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Was Added & The Benefit Of Carry Forward Of Surplus Income Was Denied Since The Form 10 Was Not Filed In Time. 2. This Matter Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & There The Issue Of Rs.3,58,00,000/- Was Allowed As Relief On The Ground That The Impugned Amount Was Apparently Debited Internally & Shown As

condonation of delay in furnishing the Form No.10 as required under section 11(2) r/w section 13(9) and the consequential

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

11. For that other various reasons which may be as under time of hearing” 3. Brief facts of the case as per the Statement of Facts filed before the Tribunal are that the assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 and is set up by the State Government of Bihar with

BIHAR STATE EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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 grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the order of the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

RAJESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2), GAYA

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 Ld. CIT(A)NFAC Delhi has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. and thereby affirmed the order made by the A.O. amounting to Rs. 14,20,370/-. 2. For that

RAHUL KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PATNA, PATNA

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

11 days for which the assessee has filed a petition for condoning the said delay as under: “1. Rahul Kumar has filed the appeal against the above-mentioned order on 23rd February 2024. 2 The said order was received by the appellant on 13 December, 2023 through email. 3. The time period for filing the said appeal is 60 days

CHANDAN KUMAR,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 260/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Chandan Kumar,……………..…………....……Appellant 2H/33, Near T.V. Tower, Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Apups3760C] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre,....Respondent New Delhi Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: February 13, 2025 O R D E R

11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: February 13, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th December, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16. 1 Chandan

PROGRESSIVE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC, CIRCLE 1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 492/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Progressive Life Sciences Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Trimurti Palace, Murgi Bagicha, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaecp0409P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Dc/Ac, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 5, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 27, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee was reopened by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section

SANJAY KUMAR,UJJAIN vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-1, 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. 696/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Sanjay Kumar,………………………….……..……Appellant B-20/19, Ved Nagar, Indore Road, Nanakheda, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh-456010, India [Pan:Amgpk0372B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…………….………...……...Respondent Circle-1, Patna Appearances By: Shri Ashish Kr. Agrawal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 20, 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 for the assessment year 2011-12 showing total income of Rs.18,63,160/-. The case was reopened to examine the fresh unsecured loan amounting to Rs.24,60,328/- introduced during the A.Y. 2011-12. The required approval

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

11. That the appellant submits that the delay in filing of the is due to a reasonable cause. The appellant submits that the delay in filing of the present appeal be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. Under the facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing appeal before this Hon'ble Court

XAVIERS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 2 (2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 349/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Xaviers Construction Pvt. Limited,....……Appellant House No. 239, Lodipur, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaacx0342D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-2(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Anjan Biswas, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is a Private Limited Company, doing its business in developing Real Estate and engaged in civil contract work. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.5,47,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should be made, your appellant submits that the learned AO ought to have considered and accepted the fact that disclosures has been made and taxes has been deposited by issuing letter to Ld. AO prior to the passing of order. 12. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should be made, your appellant submits that the learned AO ought to have considered and accepted the fact that disclosures has been made and taxes has been deposited by issuing letter to Ld. AO prior to the passing of order. 12. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should