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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NARESH YADAV,PURNIA vs. ITO, PURNIA

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

condoned the delay as it was for bonafide and genuine reasons. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte before the CIT(A) without deciding issues on merit, which violates Section 250(6

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

6(2), Patna – 800001 ...........…..…........................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Shailendra Sinha, AR Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 15.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. In this case, there is a delay of 3 days for which the assessee has filed a petition

RUBY DEVI,BETTIAH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

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

condoned the delay after finding genuine reasons. It was observed that while there was partial compliance before the AO, there was no compliance before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order did not address the merits of the appeals, violating Section 250(6

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

VISHAL KUMAR,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), MOTIHARI

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

delay, and the Departmental Representative did not object to condoning it. The Tribunal found the reasons to be bonafide and genuine.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) without deciding the issues on merit, which violates Section 250(6

SURENDRA KUMAR ,PATNA vs. ITO WARD4(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

condoned the delay and noted that the order was passed ex-parte by the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. This was considered a violation of Section 250(6

ATLANTIS MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act')\ndated 13.08.2022.\n2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 143(3)/147 through\nwhich the Ld. AO has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 73,63,100/-\non account of alleged non confirmation of loans.\n2.2 The assessee carried this matter before

KUMARI EKITA,BHAGALPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for want of prosecution. Sub-section (6) of section

MAHENDRA PRASAD,BUXAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BUXAR

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

delay was condoned after the assessee provided bonafide and genuine reasons.", "held": "The tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without deciding the issues on merit, which violated Section 250(6

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) thereafter proceeded to consider the issue on merit and again without comprehending any issue on merit dismissed the appeal by observing that the assessee has not responded to the notices. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has unnecessarily incorporated the juris prudence exhibiting the fact if a litigant did not appear or file submission, then

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,BIROLI BAZAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PURNEA, PURNIA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

section 250(6) of the Act. In view of our above discussion, we condone the delay of 6 months (about