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

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

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

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n2.\nThe assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\n“1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are all without prejudice to each\nother.\n2. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the order passed by\nthe ld. Income

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

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

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

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 the due date

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