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

delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned. 9. For that the appellant reserves his right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 10. For that the appellant craves leave to urge, add or alter any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 12.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) by the Ld. I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2018 Amit Kumar Singh Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 3. In this case, the Ld. AO 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 hears the appeal on merits.” 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. Both before the Ld. AO as well as before the I.T.A. No.: 171/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar. Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not be represented properly and the Ld. AR requested that

MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), dated 24-09-2024. 2. For that the NFAC erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, (the AO'), assessing the appellant under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 20-03-2024 at an income

PAPPU KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250

ARJUN KUMAR SAH,VAISHALI vs. ITO WARD- 1(3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 29.05.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 28.11.2019. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee through his son Mr. Anant

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay of form no 10B. 5) That as per record delay of 1260 days and due to this reason, petition was rejected by authority. 6) That, in this year assessee has filed form no 10B electronically on 13/04/2022. 7) That, due to unavailability of electronically filed 10B, during assessment process, Ld. A.0 has disallowed every claimed exemption

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

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

RAJ KISHORE UPADHYAY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, SIWAN, SIWAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act on the basis of an addition of Rs. 2,23,88,245/- made in quantum matter u/s 69A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the Ld. AO has passed

KANHAIYA KUMAR,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), BIHARSHARIF

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.560/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. [Order dated 10.01.2022) In light of the aforesaid declaration of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court duly followed by the CBDT

MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 31.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 439/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Yadav. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred

PATNA SMART CITY LIMITED,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PTN-W-(21)(91), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2022-23 dated 18.06.2025. 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 order of the learned assessing officer

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:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 17.07.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078618111(1) challenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. At the outset, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay and also because of lack of computer literacy. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

condoning the delay. Since both the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard together for simultaneous adjudication. 2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 12.12.2024. 2.1 In this

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD4(5), PATNA

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condonation of delay petition filed for ITA No. 336/Pat/2024 is extracted as under: I.T.A. Nos. 336 & 337/Pat/2024 Laxman Sharma “1. That, the CIT Appeal had passed order on 01.01.2024 under section 250

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condonation of delay petition filed for ITA No. 336/Pat/2024 is extracted as under: I.T.A. Nos. 336 & 337/Pat/2024 Laxman Sharma “1. That, the CIT Appeal had passed order on 01.01.2024 under section 250