MEENA GUPTA,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ITO, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 506/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 & S.A. No. 15/Pat/2025 (In Ita No. 506/Pat/2025) Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Meena Gupta,……………...……………..……..Appellant House No. 9/N3, Road No. 11, Rajendra Nagar, Rajendra Nagar S.O., (Patna), Sampatchak, Patna-800016, Bihar [Pan:Addpg7557N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow Chauraha, Patna-800001, Bihar

delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted”. Therefore, instead of granting any stay, we deem it appropriate to hear the appeal itself along with this Stay Application. There is no objection qua this step at the end of the parties. Therefore, present

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

condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.” 2.3. The present case at hand reveals

OM PRAKASH SHA,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(4), BIHARSHARIF, BIHARSHARIF

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

delay of 269 days, attributed to the assessee not being aware of the order. The assessee's business involves trading sweets, mixtures, and handmade bakery biscuits. The assessment order was passed under section 144 due to unexplained cash deposits and non-compliance with notices.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

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

ARBIND KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4 (1), PATNA

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the original assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144

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

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

144 determining the income at Rs.63,15,338/- by making addition of Rs.59,62,478/- representing total deposit in Bank during the period 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 corresponding to A Y 2017 -18. The Advocate concern has uploaded the Memo of Appeal by giving some e mail address which does not belong to the appellant. The registered mobile number in Form

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\nstatistical purposes

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was given another chance to present their case before the Ld. AO for fresh assessment.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "148", "144

NORTH BIHAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 243/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 North Bihar Construction Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Singh Sadan, Veer Kunwar Singh Path, Danapur Cantt., Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Aabcn9870B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…...Respondent Circle-3, Darbhanga Darbhanga-846001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 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 is engaged in the business of construction. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.27,46,090/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there

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

144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant preferred appeal. 3.1 In this case, the appellant has misrepresented the facts. Vide point no 2C of the form 35 submitted by the appellant, he has claimed date of service of order/notice of demand as 16.02.2024. Appellant filed the appeal on 16.02.2024. Vide Point

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

144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant preferred appeal. 3.1 In this case, the appellant has misrepresented the facts. Vide point no 2C of the form 35 submitted by the appellant, he has claimed date of service of order/notice of demand as 16.02.2024. Appellant filed the appeal on 16.02.2024. Vide Point

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 13.03.2023. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 69 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I had received information from the present counsel on 17th March, 2025 that the said appeal has been

MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.03.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 45 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide appeal number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069009534(1), dated 24-09-2024, has dismissed

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 in his bank account maintained at Punjab

MITHILESH KUMAR AAKELA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WAR-3(3), , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 195/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mithilesh Kumar Aakela,…………...….………Appellant S/O Mahendra Singh Pouthu, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Atepa0896R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, 2Nd Floor, R.J. Palace, Raikashinath More, Gaya-823001, Bihar

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the trading business of cement. The assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. During the course of demonetization, he deposited Rs.10,30,000/- as cash into his bank account. Since the assessee did not file

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & 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) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in not accepting the ground of appeal raised to the effect that ex parte

ROSE BUD MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is, therefore, condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the order of the learned assessing officer and also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad both

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

144 of the Act and made the addition for the alleged cash deposit of Rs. 2,62,77,730/- u/s 69A of the Act and also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act. 3.2. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 151 days. The reasons for delay stated by the assessee was that