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", "145

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay. Since\nboth the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard\ntogether for simultaneous adjudication.\n\n2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated\n12.12.2024

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

CHINMASTIKA SIDHARTHA(JV),PATNA vs. CIT(A), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from contract work. The appellant-assessee is a joint venture of Chinamastika Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited (mentioned as 1st party) and Siddharth Construction & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned as 2nd party) The assessee filed its return of income on 19.01.2016 showing total income

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

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

sections": [ "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 250", "Sec 46A", "Sec 270A", "Sec 145(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the ITAT can remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to new evidence presented by the assessee, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

MADHURI DEVI,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

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 Learned Assessing Officer, being ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa (Here in after called the "AO") has erred in Assessing the appellant on a total Income of Rs 7001665/- as against

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

condonation of the said delay.\n2.0 The present appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter ‘the\nLd. CIT(A)] dated 29.12.2021 (AY 2012-13) and 19.12.2021 (AY 2013-14).\n2.1 Aggrieved with the action

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

145(3) of the Act. By accepting the sales/turnover mentioned in the audit report, the assessment order was erroneous in as much as the books of account, such as audit report, being partly accepted and the expenditure portion being completely disallowed. 5. For that net profit cannot be estimated by applying a flat rate without rejecting the books of account

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

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 and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication

ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA vs. SHRI GAURI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES, GAYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………….………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya………….................................……........……....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Survey Was Conducted On 07.02.2017 In The Case Of The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading Business Of Cotton Yarn & Hosiery Yarn. During The Survey, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Made Substantial Deposits In Various Bank Accounts Linked With The Firm. However, The Assessee Disclosed

section 145(3) of the Act. Since, GP enhancement of the Assessing Officer is based solely on conjecture, without any supporting evidence, the Tribunal finds that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the GP 6 I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 & C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya addition of Rs.17,27,924/- in the hands of the assessee

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and the matter is admitted for adjudication. 2. It is noticed that this is an appeal filed on 31.12.2020 and has gone through 10 days of hearing beginning from 02.11.2022 to the last one being on 01.01.2025. It is seen that either adjournments have been taken by the Ld. AR or none have attended on certain

REHAN ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Honourable Itat Was To Be Filed By 27/08/2024. 04. That Deponent Was Served With The Cit(A) Order U/S 250 Dated 28.06.2024 Electronically On Income Tax Portal. No Email Or Physical Communication Was Made Regarding The Said Order Which Would Have Alerted The Deponent To React In A Timely Manner. The Deponent Could Not Check The Income Tax Portal On Time As He Was Not Aware That Such A Notice Has Been Issued. Only Upon Late Learning Of The Matter, The Deponent Sought Legal Counsel On 24.10.2024 & The Time Lapsed In Gathering Of Material Information & Preparation Of The Memorandum Of Appeal Caused Further Delay. 05. That The Deponent Will File The Appeal Manually On Itat Office At Patna.

Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed along-with memorandum of appeal. 07. That delay in filing the appeal is because of electronic service of order for which no intimation/alert message was received by the deponent that could have enabled him to react sooner coupled with delay in seeking legal counsel and drafting of grounds