M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Grounds taken by the assessee are:- (a) in ITA No. 48/Pat/2020: 1. For that the appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Grounds taken by the assessee are:- (a) in ITA No. 48/Pat/2020: 1. For that the appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed

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

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

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

1. In this case, there is a delay of 3 days for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation in which it has been mentioned that aged mother of assessee being ill, the appeal was slightly delayed in filing of the appeal. Considering the shortness of delay and the reasons mentioned in the said petition, the delay

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(1

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

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

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

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

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