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

SUJEET KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

44 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for requesting condonation of the said delay as under: “1. That, the CIT Appeal had passed order on 08.03.2024 under section

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

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

SIDDHI GUPTA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 355 & 356/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Siddhi Gupta,…………………..…………....……Appellant S/O. Gopal Prasad Gupta, Masjid Road, Near Rath, Durga Chowk, Obra, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Aufps5370G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Near Block More, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar

delay is condoned in both the appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who earns income from trading of food grains. The assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and was supposed to file his return on due date. During the course of demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs.12

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

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

VIRENDRA SAH,PURNEA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 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. 132/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Virendra Sah,…………….……….………..………Appellant Madhavnagar Tirasi Tola, Bhawanipur, Purnea-854204, Bihar [Pan:Gvdps7989Q] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, ………………………….…....Respondent Income Tax Department, Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar 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 engaged in sale of Maize (Food Grain). The assessee has not furnished his return of income for the AY 2018-19. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.2,44,26,100/- from his current bank account bearing no. 917020033600049 maintained

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 43,67,25,641/- made

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

MANI BHUSHAN KUMAR,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the A.O. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing order which

ARCHANA KUMARI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1), 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. 15/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Archana Kumari,…………..………….……..……Appellant C/O. Raj Kumar, Sri Ram Nursing Home, S.K. Puri, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aqgpk0359J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Patna, 4Th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 20, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business medicine. The assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 20.09.2019 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, where she declared her business income and admitted

MAHMOOD ALAM,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-5, PATNA, PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n2. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld.\nCIT(A)"] vide order dated 29.07.2024 for AY 2017-18.\n2.1 In this case

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22nd August, 2021, framed by Income Tax officer, NFAC. 2. The registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 46 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee did not came to know about the impugned

GYAN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,VARANASI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 3. As the issues raised in the present appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, we first take up the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 and our decisions therein shall

GYAN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,VARANASI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 3. As the issues raised in the present appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, we first take up the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 and our decisions therein shall