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

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 no 14 of the Form

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

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.11,46,000/-. In this case, the department has credible information that the assessee has made advances to various entities and made investments during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. In order

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

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 dismissed

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 27.02.2023. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 103 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant appeal. 2. That

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

144B of the Act, vide order dated 25-03-2022 at an income of Rs 2,62,77,730/- against the current years income of Rs 3,07,646/-, by making addition of Rs 2,62,77,730/- after treating the entire deposits in bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 3. For that the learned

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

144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the ground for condonation of delay was mentioned as “The women

SAVITA DEVI,SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA,BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noticed that there was a delay of 140 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee had failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) followed several judicial pronouncements

BINDESHWARI LAL MAHTO,KATIHAR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act. ITA No.: 349/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bindeshwari Lal Mahto. 4. For that the learned assessing officer has erred in adding assessee sum of 70,78,000 as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act merely on the ground that the notices issued were not complied with. 5. For that the learned Commissioner of Income

MOHAMMAD TANWEER ALI IMAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Mohammad Tanweer Ali Imam, Income Tax Officer, Darul Aman Po Bv College, Ward 5(1), Patna Samanpura, Rajabazar, Vs. Patna-800014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpi1722J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 04. The assessee has assailed the assessment order passed u/s 144 read with section 144B

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

condone the delay and taking up for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Ld. Pr.CIT called the assessment record and observed that order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 19.03.2023 assessed the total income at Rs. 68,24,861/- in which he observed

MANOJ KUMAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD, GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Manoj Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Chawal Bazar, Main Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824143. [Pan: Andpk2914K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 5, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2021-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹ 5,54,350. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2021–22 declaring total income of ₹ 5,54,350. The return was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the I.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Manoj Kumar Act were issued. Since the assessee failed

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22nd August, 2021, framed by Income Tax officer, NFAC. 2. The registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 46 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Petition & The Submissions Made, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 Ganesh Kumar Khemka 3. Brief facts of the Case are that the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 144B

NEERAJ SINHA, HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2022. I.T.A. No.: 114/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Neeraj Sinha, HUF 2. The Registry has informed that the appeal is delayed by 344 days. During the course of the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned are that the appellant

MD. SABIR ALAM,KISHANGANJ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed a petition praying for condonation

LATE CHANDRA KISHORE MISHRA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ALOK RANJAN,MOTIHARI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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. I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, the orders of the authorities below are without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and liable

NILU KUMARI,SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TX DPTT., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation request and thus not hearing the matter on merits of the case. The Id appellate commissioner also erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant is a lady residing in a remote place where electricity, internet etc are not easily available. I.T.A. No.: 429/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nilu Kumari. 8. For that the charging of interest under

MADHU DEVI,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF, PATNA

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

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 proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the assessing officer has no reason to believe within the meaning