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

156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) read with show cause notice dated 08.06.2021 issued for initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act. The Petitioner had received a notice dated 22.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-2019 calling upon to show cause as to why assessment should not be completed

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay for filing of appeal before

M/S AVINASH KUMAR,PATNA vs. CIT A, PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Nfac, Delhi With Copy Enclosed Of Statement Of Facts & Ground Of Appeal. But Unfortunately It Is Also Dismissed On 31/08/2023 With The Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055630751(1). This Order Has Been Issued U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After 4 Years 6 Months. The Appellant Had Forgotten. The Appellant Was Also Facing Medical Issue Of Family Members & Also Death Happened (Copy Enclosed).

condonation of delay as under That the appellant is in receipt of demand notice issued u/s 156 of Act by which demand of Rs. 51,07,233/- has been raised on the appellant during the A.Y. 2016-17 vide Assessment Order passed u/s 144 read with section

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.

156 days of filing of the present appeal for which a petition has been filed as under: “01. That the Deponent Mr. Rehan Alam is the proprietor of the firm, M/s Sathi Construction, and hence is fully conversant of the facts deposed below: 02. That the deponent received order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 250 of the Income

MOHAMMAD NAZIM AHMAD,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BIHARSHARIFF, BIHARSHARIFF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay\nis for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal for adjudicate.\nMohammad Nazim Ahmad; A.Y. 2017-18\nAt the time of hearing, the Id. Counsel for the assessee pressed only\none issue which is against the invalid assessment framed by the\nNational Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] vide\norder

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

156 dated 10/01/2024 requiring the petitioner to pay the disputed tax of Rs.1.31 crore. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has checked the e-portal of A.Y.2011-12 and found the impugned order and accordingly, the petitioner is filing this appeal which can be said to be a belated appeal, if limitation is counted from the date of its order. However