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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

delay of 11 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income under Section 44AD and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's actions.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

RAJ KISHORE UPADHYAY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, SIWAN, SIWAN

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

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

69A of the Act. It is a matter of record that the Ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order. 2.1 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where he could not succeed on account of a delay of 258 days, which was not condoned; and also due to the provision of Section

MS. NAYDU KUMARI,MADHEPURA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay as the reasons provided were genuine and bonafide. The lower authorities' orders were ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish documents. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A

AMAR NATH SINGH,ARA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

condone the delay and the appeal is taking for adjudication. 3 Amar Nath Singh 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.01.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 5,03,010/- as per information with the income tax department. The assessee had deposited cash in his bank account maintained at Punjab

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), 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. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed his return of income electronically on 29.03.2018 showing total income of Rs.4,82,400/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI. The assessee derives income from house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine cash deposit during

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n2.\nThe assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\n“1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are all without prejudice to each\nother.\n2. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the order passed by\nthe ld. Income

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE trading undisclosed income under the head of other sources of the previous year relevant to the AY 2017- 18. 7. Decision is being given on merits; as the result of the condonation of delay filed by the appellant: "For the substantial interest of justice, we condone the delay". The total addition/demand made

SMT. RANJU KUMARI,JAMUI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

69A of the Act and also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act. 3.2. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 151 days. The reasons for delay stated by the assessee was that she was not aware of the income tax proceedings and only after being served with the penalty notice she came

YUWARAJ KUNDAN,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ARRAH

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 204/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Yuwaraj Kundan,………….…..…..……..……Appellant Mission Road, Pakri Nawada Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar-802301 [Pan: Bhgpk6469M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...Respondent Ward-1(4), Ara Appearances By: Shri Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,29,441/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 24th September, 2018 and served on the assessee. In response to notice

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)

delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case, the appeal arises from order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). In this case, the Ld. AO passed

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

69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing as gross salary received from the employer as per Form No. 26AS was also made. Another sum of ₹7,09,800/- from Executive Officer Nagar Parishad Sasaram received during

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

69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing as gross salary received from the employer as per Form No. 26AS was also made. Another sum of ₹7,09,800/- from Executive Officer Nagar Parishad Sasaram received during

PAWAPURI RICE MILL PVT. LTD,NALANDA vs. ITO WARD, 2(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 634/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & I.T.A. No. 635/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 636/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited,……..……..Appellant Pokhapur, Pawapuri, P.S. Giriyak, Nalanda-803115, Bihar [Pan:Aagcp6179C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………….………...Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: No N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz):- The Present Three Appeals Bearing Ita Nos. 634/Pat/2024, 635/Pat/2024 & 636/Pat/2024 Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Rice Mill Sector. It filed its return of income for the assessment years under consideration. Subsequently the cases were reopened under section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval of the competent authority after recording reasons

PAWAPURI RICE MILL PVT. LTD,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 634/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & I.T.A. No. 635/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 636/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited,……..……..Appellant Pokhapur, Pawapuri, P.S. Giriyak, Nalanda-803115, Bihar [Pan:Aagcp6179C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………….………...Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: No N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz):- The Present Three Appeals Bearing Ita Nos. 634/Pat/2024, 635/Pat/2024 & 636/Pat/2024 Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Rice Mill Sector. It filed its return of income for the assessment years under consideration. Subsequently the cases were reopened under section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval of the competent authority after recording reasons

PAWAPURI RICE MILL PVT. LTD,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 634/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & I.T.A. No. 635/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 636/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited,……..……..Appellant Pokhapur, Pawapuri, P.S. Giriyak, Nalanda-803115, Bihar [Pan:Aagcp6179C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………….………...Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: No N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz):- The Present Three Appeals Bearing Ita Nos. 634/Pat/2024, 635/Pat/2024 & 636/Pat/2024 Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Rice Mill Sector. It filed its return of income for the assessment years under consideration. Subsequently the cases were reopened under section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval of the competent authority after recording reasons

MANOJ KUMAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD, GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Manoj Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Chawal Bazar, Main Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824143. [Pan: Andpk2914K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 5, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2021-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹ 5,54,350. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2021–22 declaring total income of ₹ 5,54,350. The return was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the I.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Manoj Kumar Act were issued. Since the assessee failed

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

69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and assessed taxed U/s 115 BBE of the Act at the rate of 60 percent.” 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued notices for hearing after condoning the delay but since the assessee did not respond, he inferred that the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.\nThe first issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of learned\nCIT (A) quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that the learned AO reopened the case u/s\n147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12.10.2017,\nafter obtaining