AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoned and appeal is admitted. 4. At the outset, ld. DR submitted that the grounds of appeal relating to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee

RAM KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, 3(5), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in applying the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the 1. T. Act, 1961. The provision of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the 1. T. Act, 1961 has arbitrarily been applied in the case of the appellant

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

K.B. TECHNIC PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay as the reasons provided were genuine and bonafide, and the Department did not object. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's reply and was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, thus lacking natural justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1

LAL BAHADUR PANDEY,SARAN vs. ITO, WARD,-2(2), CHHAPARA

In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borads.A. No. 9/Pat/2024 (In Ita No. 507/Pat/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lal Bahadur Pandey,…………………………..Applicant Vill. Bheldi, Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar-841402 [Pan:Bifpp6882H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(2), Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar & I.T.A. No. 507/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Lal Bahadur Pandey,…………………………..Appellant Vill. Bheldi, Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar-841402 [Pan:Bifpp6882H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(2), Chapra, Dist. Saran, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. v. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Supreme Court of India held that, if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay

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

section 12A of the Act was rejected. The provisional registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act in Form No. 10AC on 27.05.2021 vide unique Registration Number-ABEAS7724HE20206 for AY 2021-22 to 2023-24 was also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

RAJESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2), GAYA

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 Ld. CIT(A)NFAC Delhi has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. and thereby affirmed the order made by the A.O. amounting to Rs. 14,20,370/-. 2. For that

MEENA GUPTA,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ITO, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 506/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 & S.A. No. 15/Pat/2025 (In Ita No. 506/Pat/2025) Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Meena Gupta,……………...……………..……..Appellant House No. 9/N3, Road No. 11, Rajendra Nagar, Rajendra Nagar S.O., (Patna), Sampatchak, Patna-800016, Bihar [Pan:Addpg7557N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow Chauraha, Patna-800001, Bihar

delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted”. Therefore, instead of granting any stay, we deem it appropriate to hear the appeal itself along with this Stay Application. There is no objection qua this step at the end of the parties. Therefore, present

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

OOSMANIA TRUST,MUZAFFARPUR vs. CIT (E), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) the delay in filing the application for renewal of registration may please be condoned and issue may be remanded to the desk of the CIT(E) to consider the application of the assessee in accordance with law. Further now the assessee Trust has already made an addendum to the trust deed incorporating the dissolution clause, copy

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

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

PAPPU KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section 6 of section 250 contemplates

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

6) No appeal under section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad

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

6) No appeal under section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad

BISHWANATH PRASAD,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

6) No appeal under section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad