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 148(a) of the Income Tax Act. At first instance, the assessee thought that there was no need to file the appeal, but later on when it consulted with ld. Sr. Counsel, it was advised to file an appeal. In that process, the delay of 14 days had occurred. The assessee has prayed that delay be condoned

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 148(a) of the Income Tax Act. At first instance, the assessee thought that there was no need to file the appeal, but later on when it consulted with ld. Sr. Counsel, it was advised to file an appeal. In that process, the delay of 14 days had occurred. The assessee has prayed that delay be condoned

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

148 of the Act was issued on 16.04.2021 of which the assessee failed to reply. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) was issued on several dates and the assessee did not reply. Thereafter a show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued on 23.02.2022 against which the assessee did not reply which led to passing of order

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

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 in appeal before us with the following grounds: “1. For that the order of the learned assessing officer is bad both in law and on facts. 2. For that the learned assessing officer has erred

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

148 of the Act was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to file the return and despite giving sufficient opportunities failed to respond to the notices issued. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') examined the provision of section 69A of the Act and the judicial pronouncement in the case of Chuharmal

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

148 of the Act was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to file the return and despite giving sufficient opportunities failed to respond to the notices issued. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') examined the provision of section 69A of the Act and the judicial pronouncement in the case of Chuharmal

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of a petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum running in the name and style of M/s. Jaya Fuels situated at West Boring Canal Road, Patna. The assessee during the financial year 2016- 17 corresponding to assessment year 2017-18, derived income from

JAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. DC,AC CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR

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. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of a petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum running in the name and style of M/s. Jaya Fuels situated at West Boring Canal Road, Patna. The assessee during the financial year 2016- 17 corresponding to assessment year 2017-18, derived income from

RAM KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, 3(5), 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 grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the Assessment Order as passed by the lower authorities is bad in law. No reasonable opportunity

RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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. 653/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited,……………………………………….………Appellant 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aafcr2222R] -Vs.- Nfac,…………………………………………….…...Respondent New Delhi, Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Rinku Singh, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in running Nursing Homes and Emergency Services and sale of medicine. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring NIL income claiming loss at Rs.34,64,44,303/-. The return of income was revised by the assessee

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 148

ASHOK TIWARI,SIWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (3), SIWAN

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. 28/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Tiwari,………………….……..……..………Appellant Nirala Nagar, Near Junior Sikshak Sangh, Behind Adda No. 1, Siwan, Bihar [Pan:Aecpt0627G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-2(3), Siwan, Office At Income Tax Office, Dak Bunglow Road, Siwarn-841226, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 21.06.2013. In this case, an information received from ADIT (Inv.), Muzaffarpur, that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at a total cost of Rs.58,30,786/- from Shri Abhishek Kumar. The said information examined from ITR of the assessee

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148. Your good-self may examine the fact stated above from the records of learned assessing officer about reasons recorded and the same is approved by higher authority in writing before issue of notice u/s 148. Hence, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 is totally arbitrary, illegal and totally based on suspicion after information collected

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.\nThe first issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of learned\nCIT (A) quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that the learned AO reopened the case u/s\n147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12.10.2017,\nafter obtaining

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

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

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

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section