VIJAY KUMAR JHA,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. Nos. 412, 413, 414 & 415/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 14-15, 15-16 & 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Jha,…………….……………………..Appellant Kanhaulidih, Near Sanskrit College, Malighat, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar [Pan:Adgpj3007M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, New Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ca, Appeared Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manab Adak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

delay is condoned for all the appeals. 4. The facts in brief in ITA No. 412/PAT/2025 are that the assessee did not file ITR. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 14.03.2019 after taking prior approval of ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarpur for AY 2013-14 as the assessee ITA Nos. 412 to 415/PAT/2025 (A.Ys

VIJAY KUMAR JHA,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. Nos. 412, 413, 414 & 415/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 14-15, 15-16 & 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Jha,…………….……………………..Appellant Kanhaulidih, Near Sanskrit College, Malighat, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar [Pan:Adgpj3007M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, New Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ca, Appeared Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manab Adak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

delay is condoned for all the appeals. 4. The facts in brief in ITA No. 412/PAT/2025 are that the assessee did not file ITR. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 14.03.2019 after taking prior approval of ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarpur for AY 2013-14 as the assessee ITA Nos. 412 to 415/PAT/2025 (A.Ys

VIJAY KUMAR JHA,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. Nos. 412, 413, 414 & 415/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 14-15, 15-16 & 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Jha,…………….……………………..Appellant Kanhaulidih, Near Sanskrit College, Malighat, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar [Pan:Adgpj3007M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle, Muzaffarpur, Aayakar Bhawan, New Nehru Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ca, Appeared Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manab Adak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

delay is condoned for all the appeals. 4. The facts in brief in ITA No. 412/PAT/2025 are that the assessee did not file ITR. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 14.03.2019 after taking prior approval of ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarpur for AY 2013-14 as the assessee ITA Nos. 412 to 415/PAT/2025 (A.Ys

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

condone the delay in filling the appeal and taking for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during financial year 2014-15 the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 2,27,33,985/- in his bank account and no return of income was filed, therefore, the case was reopened after completing entire procedures for reopening u/s147

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

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Government Civil Contractor & Sub-contractor and involved in the infrastructure development and maintenance such as roads, bridges, railways tunnels, etc. Income of Rs.4,25,44,130/- declared

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

VEENA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. For that the order passed U/s 263 of the IT Act by the Ld PCIT, Patna is wrong, illegal, arbitrary & against the fact & circumstances of the case. I.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi 2 2. For that

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. P a g e 1 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal” “1. For that the CIT(A) has erred in affirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3)/147 wherein the Assessing Officer has assessed

MD. SABIR ALAM,KISHANGANJ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed a petition praying for condonation of such delay. 3. We after perusing application filed by the revenue, find that there is a reasonable cause

LAL BABU PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

delay of 437 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 Lal Babu Prasad 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in gold and silver ornaments. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015–16. A survey under section 133A

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

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,KOCHAS BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is prospective only with effect from 01.06.2015 and that the demand of fees u/s 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 cannot be made since there was no enabling provision of section 200A

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,A P COLONY GAYA BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is prospective only with effect from 01.06.2015 and that the demand of fees u/s 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 cannot be made since there was no enabling provision of section 200A

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,PUSAULI STATION BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is prospective only with effect from 01.06.2015 and that the demand of fees u/s 234E of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 cannot be made since there was no enabling provision of section 200A