BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. (b) Whether capital gain on compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is leviable in his hands or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically on 15.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,53,190/-.The assessee

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

condoned the delay as the reasons provided were genuine and bonafide, and the Department did not object. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's reply and was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, thus lacking natural justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 653/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited,……………………………………….………Appellant 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aafcr2222R] -Vs.- Nfac,…………………………………………….…...Respondent New Delhi, Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Rinku Singh, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in running Nursing Homes and Emergency Services and sale of medicine. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring NIL income claiming loss at Rs.34,64,44,303/-. The return of income was revised by the assessee

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case

RENU SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 225/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Renu Singh,………………………………..…………Appellant Akashwani Road, Opp. Vishal Apptt., Khajpura, Rajabazar, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Bevps2633R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-5(5), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. The assessee is an individual and has invested in share trading for an amount of Rs.1,14,13,751/- for the Financial Year 2012-13. The assessee did not file any return of income. A notice under section 147 of the Act was issued, but the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter

DINESH BARANWAL,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MOTIHARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a dealer of a telecom service operator, namely M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt. I.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Sri Dinesh Baranwal Ltd., and several sub-dealers operated under the assessee's registration code. Commissions payable to sub-dealers were directly disbursed

SAVITA DEVI,SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA,BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed in limine” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee was seeking adjournment but the same was refused as the reason for adjournment were

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and was reported to be a non-filer. Information was received from Insight portal which suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The assessee sold immovable property valued at Rs.84,23,000/-, received interest on securities amounting

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

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed

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

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

271(1)(b) of the Act and also by sustaining levy of interest u/s 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

ANJANI KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), PATNA, 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.: 201/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Anjani Kumar. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i) For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. ii) For that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: “1. Addition of Rs. 1,26,24,890/- in income is bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is the proprietor of M/s Balajee Polly Packaging

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact no. was correctly mentioned on the appellant’s portal for the communication of notices/letter/orders and in consequence, the assessee was not able to file appeal against the said order within the prescribed limit

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

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 or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the 28-05-2025. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 27/07/2025. That I, due to illness irregular to open the e-mail and not showing I.T. Portal. As and when I saw my portal thereafter, I am filing my appeal