SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the Initiation of reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer, Ward - 6(2), Patna is without any valid Jurisdiction and as such the assessment order

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

shortness of delay and the reasons mentioned in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 12.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) by the Ld. I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2018 Amit Kumar Singh Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A), Patna-2. 2. Both the revenue and assessee has raised the following grounds for the AY 2014-15 :- Grounds raised by the revenue in the appeal:- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by referring to the RFCTLARR

BINOD KUMAR KEDIA,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

delay in filing of appeal is for 10 days and prayed for condonation”. The ld. CIT(Appeals) opined that the sequence of facts clearly indicates that for the impugned assessment year there is no appeal left for adjudication as the same has already been disposed vide order under section 250 dated 18.12.2018, if the appellant has any further grievance against

RANJEET PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

shortness of the delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that in this case, the I.T.A. No.: 270/PAT/2023 Ranjeet Prasad, AY : 2014-15 impugned addition has been made/confirmed by the lower