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

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

4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued notices for hearing after condoning the delay but since the assessee did not respond, he inferred that the assessee is not aggrieved with the assessment order and is not interested in prosecuting the same and the additions/disallowances as per the grounds

LAL BAHADUR PANDEY,SARAN vs. ITO, WARD,-2(2), CHHAPARA

In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borads.A. No. 9/Pat/2024 (In Ita No. 507/Pat/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lal Bahadur Pandey,…………………………..Applicant Vill. Bheldi, Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar-841402 [Pan:Bifpp6882H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(2), Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar & I.T.A. No. 507/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lal Bahadur Pandey,…………………………..Appellant Vill. Bheldi, Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar-841402 [Pan:Bifpp6882H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(2), Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. Sub-section (6) of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT would state the point in dispute and thereafter record reasons on those points in support of his conclusion. In the present case, ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to call for the assessment record and other material. He simply dismissed

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

K.B. TECHNIC PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay is hereby condoned.\n04. At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the\nBench that the orders of Id. CIT (A) as well as Id. AO are ex-parte\norder and is liable to set aside. The Id. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted before the Bench that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)\nu/s

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

4) That, assessee had no knowledge about this fact and after knowing the fact assessee Filed a petition before C.I.T(Exemption)Patna & Chairman, C.B.D.T through registered post for 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

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

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 an order dated 23.12.2019 u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act. Through this order, he assessed long term capital gains

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(6) of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section 6 of section 250 contemplates

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

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

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

ALMAHAD TRUST ,PATNA vs. ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Act was filed on 21.10.2025 4. That as per the provisions as contained in the Act the appellant was required to file the appeal within period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Thus, there is a delay of approximately 13 months and 17 days in the tiling of the present

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

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

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

250 (SC) and made an addition of ₹1,25,24,480/- u/s 69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing as gross salary received from the employer as per Form No. 26AS was also made. Another

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

250 (SC) and made an addition of ₹1,25,24,480/- u/s 69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing as gross salary received from the employer as per Form No. 26AS was also made. Another

OM PRAKASH SHA,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(4), BIHARSHARIF, BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

4)\nBiharsharif\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. DFYPS6484C\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nShri A.K. Rastogi, AR\nShri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR\nDate of hearing: 07.07.2025\nDate of pronouncement: 18.07.2025\nORDER\nPer Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:\nThis is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as\nthe