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

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

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & 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) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in not accepting the ground of appeal raised to the effect that ex parte

AKANKSHA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,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) I.T.A. No. 360/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Akanksha Enterprises Private Limited,……Appellant Chailital, Gulzarbagh, Patna-800007, Bihar [Pan:Aafca5764K] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),...Respondent Patna, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Amit Kamalia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 and processing under section 143(3) was completed on 28.12.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer made the addition of cash deposit in demonetization period Rs.12,48,000/- as unexplained under section 69A and initiated penalty proceeding under section 271AAC

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shardindu Prasad Singh. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal, which are argumentative: “A. For that, on the fact and circumstances of the case, this 2nd appeal arises against an arbitrary, baseless, hypothetical and presumptive incomplete

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

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. I.T.A. No.: 392/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar. 2. No grounds of appeal have been filed. However, in Form No. 35, the assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A): “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

234B, 234C and 234D is unsustainable in law being mechanical and without the sanction of law. 8) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before

MAYANK SINGH,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: 01/04/2023, But Could Not Be So Filed As I Was Bed Ridden Due To Dengue & I Was Advised For Complete Bed Rest. We Therefore Pray That Delay In Filing The Appeal Should Be Condoned & It Should Be Treated As Filed Within The Allowed Time.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 1.1 The present appeal emanates from order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 30.01.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred

DUDHESHWAR GUPTA,ARRAH vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, PATNA, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN , PATNA

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

Bench: 03/02/2024, But Could Not Be So File As I Was Bed Ridden Due To High Fever & I Was Advised For Complete Bed Rest. We Therefore Pray That Delay In Filing The Appeal Should Be Condoned & It Should Be Treated As Filed Within The Allowed Time. & For This Act Of Kindness, I Shall Ever Pray.”

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2017- 18 on the 05-12-2023. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 03/02/2024, but could not be so file as I was Bed ridden due to high fever and I was advised for complete bed rest. We therefore pray that delay in filing

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's claim of illness. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not provide sufficient justification for treating the demonetized deposits as unexplained, while other receipts were treated as business income without specific reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee claimed to have filed written submissions which were not considered

SH. MHESHWAR SINGH,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

234B and 234C of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. That the NFAC has erred in law and facts in issuing the order under Section 144 in spite of the fact that the assessee had responded properly and completely the notice previously issued. NFAC has issued notice on 2nd Nov, 2023 fixing

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well