SARVAJANIK EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,GUGULDIH vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 days. 1.2 We have considered the submissions made, gone through the application seeking condonation of delay and after perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication

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

35 and an extension of time to rectify any remaining procedural requirements within the stipulated period of ten days, as advised. I would also like to bring to your notice that this reply is submitted without prejudice to the question of limitation, which I understand will be decided I.T.A. No.: 439/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Yadav

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

35 was that of the appellant. However, no message of uploading of notices of hearing of appeal was received on the registered mobile number. It seems that all the notices were issued on the registered e mail id and unfortunately no information was received by the appellant resulting into ex-parte order by NFAC, Delhi confirming the addition made

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant preferred appeal. 3.1 In this case, the appellant has misrepresented the facts. Vide point no 2C of the form 35 submitted by the appellant, he has claimed date of service of order/notice of demand as 16.02.2024. Appellant filed the appeal on 16.02.2024. Vide Point no 14 of the Form

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant preferred appeal. 3.1 In this case, the appellant has misrepresented the facts. Vide point no 2C of the form 35 submitted by the appellant, he has claimed date of service of order/notice of demand as 16.02.2024. Appellant filed the appeal on 16.02.2024. Vide Point no 14 of the Form

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

condone the delay and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹8,02,45,293/-, which was in violation to the Provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income

KALI KINKAR MANI,PURNEA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15 Kali Kinkar Mani…..…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant 155, Mahaboob Khan Tola, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Arypm9775F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi………………….…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kapil Narayan Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.10.24 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 202 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Due To Chronic Disease & Complete Bed Rest As Per Doctor’S Advice, The Assessee Could Not Able To File The Appeal Timely Before Us & We Note That The Reasons Cited Are Valid & Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Kali Kinkar Mani

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 202 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the petition for condonation of delay, we find that due to chronic

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay. Since\nboth the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard\ntogether for simultaneous adjudication.\n\n2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated\n12.12.2024

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

condoned the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) also went through the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act and considered the submission of the assessee but dismissed the appeal by his finding as under: “7.1 I have perused the appellant's submissions and Form 35

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 for filing of appeal before

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 years Proprietor of Bamboo Trading S/o- Shankar Dutt Jha R/o Village- At- Shiv Mandir, Tilak Chowk, P.s. and Dist- Madhubani (Bihar) 847211 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. That I am a citizen of India and residing at the above mentioned address. 2. That I am the Proprietors of Bamboo Trading with agriculture product. 3. That

AKANKSHA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT(A), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 360/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Akanksha Enterprises Private Limited,……Appellant Chailital, Gulzarbagh, Patna-800007, Bihar [Pan:Aafca5764K] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),...Respondent Patna, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Amit Kamalia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

35 filed. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the 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

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Government Civil Contractor & Sub-contractor and involved in the infrastructure development and maintenance such as roads, bridges, railways tunnels, etc. Income of Rs.4,25,44,130/- declared

DILIP KUMAR SINGH AND SONS,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.312/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dilip Kumar Singh & Sons….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Dilip Kr. Singh, East Lohanipur, Pustakalaya Lane, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003. [Pan: Aaihd8902J] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 19, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Sankalp Construction During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Noticed That As Per The Agreement, The Total Value Of Land Was Rs.4,41,14,025/- & The Value Of Share Owned By The Assessee At One Sixth Share Of 50% Of Land Owned By The Assessee Which Stands At Rs.36,76,169/-. On Perusal Of Records, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income Nor Made Any Compliance, Therefore, He Issued Notice U/S 148

35 and grounds of appeal. The ld. AR further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor attributable to any extraneous or ulterior motive on the part of the assessee and the assessee is not benefitted in any way from delayed filing of this appeal. The ld. AR in order to substantiate the submission has stated

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