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

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

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is running a wholesale business as her proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Gwalior Industries. The assessee filed her return of income electronically showing aggregate income of Rs.6,48,570/-. The case was selected

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

PRERNA AGENCY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee M/s Prerna Agency pvt. Ltd. derived income from share trading, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14, and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.02.2016. Subsequently on an information received from investigation wing that M/s Prerna Agency

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

condonation of delay. The ld. A.R. submitted that the deposit of ₹ 49,80,700/- made during the demonetization period in the Bank account had been added to the total income by the ld. Assessing Officer and the income has been assessed under section

SWARGIYA PROF NAWAL PD. SINGH S SANSTHAN,VAISHALI vs. CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan…………………..………. …………………....Appellant 0 Sahi Colony, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar- 844101.. [Pan: Aagts5236E] Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru……..…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19. The Case Was Processed By The Cpc, Which Issued An Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Disallowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of ₹1,25,99,176, Being 80% Of The Total Expenditure Against Total Receipts Of ₹1,27,78,294. Consequently, The Total Income Was Determined At ₹₹1,27,78,294. I.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan 3. Aggrieved By The Above Intimation, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Solely On The Ground That It Was Filed After A Delay Of 1,489 Days, Without Considering The Matter On Merits.

section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption of ₹1,25,99,176, being 80% of the total expenditure against total receipts of ₹1,27,78,294. Consequently, the total income was determined at ₹₹1,27,78,294. I.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan 3. Aggrieved by the above intimation, the assessee

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

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

delay is condoned. [Para 8]” 013. We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ultimate Infratech Private Limited Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre in WP 6305/2022 dated 20th April, 2022, dealing with similar issue has held as under: - “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is only

M/S CLASSICON BUILDERS INDIA PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

80 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and submitted that the order was served upon the assessee electronically because the Department was gradually moving towards e-assessment and the notices were being served upon the assessee on-line/electronically and this being the first year of this shifting from physically to electronically mode coupled with

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

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

80,39,300/- or u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) or any other section in ITR s the assessee had not filed the Form 10B under section 12A(1)(b). In view of the clear admission on the part of the assessee that it has not filed Form 10B, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11/12

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

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