PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided. However, due to the introduction of new evidence in the paper book filed before the ITAT, which was not presented before the lower authorities, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 250", "Sec 46A

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

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

RAHUL KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PATNA, PATNA

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the course of online verification

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay and also because of lack of computer literacy. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. We note that in Ajji Basha

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is running a wholesale business as her proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Gwalior Industries. The assessee filed her return of income electronically showing aggregate income of Rs.6,48,570/-. The case was selected

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

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

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

VIDYA SAGAR SINGH HUF THROUGH KARTA SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 8/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vidya Sagar Singh HUF Through Karta Santosh Kumar Singh. “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding appeal ex-parte and confirming the addition

AASHIRBAD ENTERPRISES,FORBESGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURNEA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the income tax return of the firm was audited by the Chartered Accountant well within the prescribed time and filed on 04.11.2017 and a refund of Rs. 14,750/- was granted. In the case

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay filling of appeal that one of the director "Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) was ill from last year. Due to illness of the director, we have not proper reply to CIT(A) also. And they have passed order accordingly as we have not reply on time to CIT(A). 5. That the, The Director (Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) has passed

ITO, W-1(3), VAISHALI, HAJIPUR vs. SHIV SHARAN SINGH, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the Commissioner of Income (Appeal)(NFAC) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,37,721/-made

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

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), 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. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts. 2. For that the claim of the Learned CIT(A) that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

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

condone the said delay and admit the four appeals for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of four appeals passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) as under: AY 2014-15 order dated 25.08.2021 AY 2015-16 order dated

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

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

condone the said delay and admit the four appeals for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of four appeals passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) as under: AY 2014-15 order dated 25.08.2021 AY 2015-16 order dated

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

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

condone the said delay and admit the four appeals for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of four appeals passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) as under: AY 2014-15 order dated 25.08.2021 AY 2015-16 order dated