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

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 and appeals

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

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 and appeals

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

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

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

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

DINESH BARANWAL,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MOTIHARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a dealer of a telecom service operator, namely M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt. I.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Sri Dinesh Baranwal Ltd., and several sub-dealers operated under the assessee's registration code. Commissions payable to sub-dealers were directly disbursed

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

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 grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 as passed u/s 143(3) read

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

1 Jaya Singh 2. The appeal is time barred by seven days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee Sm. Jaya Singh filed a condonation petition saying that being a senior citizen, she has to face many problems and was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know

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

1 Jaya Singh 2. The appeal is time barred by seven days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee Sm. Jaya Singh filed a condonation petition saying that being a senior citizen, she has to face many problems and was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know

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

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

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed

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

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