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

PROTECH PACKAGING PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Protech Packaging Pvt Ltd., 3A, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Patna Ground Floor, Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Patna- 80000 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 1473 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/10147/2017-18 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 607 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Order Of Ld Cit(A) Was Passed On 23.6.2023 & The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed Within 60 Days, However, Due To Serious Illness Of The Accountant Who Was Entrusted To Take Steps In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts as emerged from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of aluminium caps. Return of income was filed on 30.09.2015 showing total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, notices

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay of 294 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed under section

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

55,763/-.\nAgainst this background, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/2 on\naccount of low withdrawal. I find that this addition is inconsistent against\nhis view for AY 2002-03 on the same issue. Admittedly, in this case, the\nAO had the evidence of expenses of Rs. 56,000/- approx. The AO has\nallowed personal expenses

SHRIJAN CHARITY,SITAMARHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 22 months and 20 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay on the following ground

MADHU DEVI,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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 proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the assessing officer has no reason to believe within the meaning

MOHAMMAD KASIF RAJA,MILIK TOLA, KHOKSA, BAISI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

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. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 28.03.2024 is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the appellant was not provided a proper and reasonable opportunity

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal emanates from an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 04.10.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2.1 In this case, an addition of Rs.7,10,979/- has been made on account

MAGADH HOMIOPATHIK MEDICAL COLLAGE AND HOSPITAL,BIHAR SHARIF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 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 of 46 days. However, a perusal of Form No. 36 filed shows that in the row for the appeal details, the date of order under section 250 of the Act is mentioned as 24/03/2025 and the date of receipt the order is mentioned as 20/06/2025. The limitation arises from the date of receipt of the order

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the Initiation of reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer, Ward - 6(2), Patna is without any valid Jurisdiction and as such the assessment order

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the Initiation of reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer, Ward - 6(2), Patna is without any valid Jurisdiction and as such the assessment order

BINOD KUMAR KEDIA,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

section 250 dated 18.12.2018 with certain directions to the ld. Assessing Officer and when assessee filed in Form no. 35 only one ground of appeal, which recorded at sr. no. 13 of Form no. 35, pleading therein - 2 Binod Kumar Kedia “consequential demand and uploading of the consequential demand of Rs.7,55,720/- is void ab initio and wholly illegal

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

delay of 132 days in filing the\ninstant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for\ncondonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the\naverments made in the applications, we condone the delay.\n3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.\nOn perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were\nscheduled