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

b. Family Marriage: Additionally, there was a family marriage ceremony during the same period, necessitating my presence and involvement in arrangements, further diverting attention from statutory compliance deadlines. I rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (2015) where it was held that genuine reasons such as medical emergencies

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

condoning the delay. Since both the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard together for simultaneous adjudication. 2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 12.12.2024. 2.1 In this

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

B 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice”; draft assessment order has not been issued by Ld. AO which made the order

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

B 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice”; draft assessment order has not been issued by Ld. AO which made the order

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

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

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well