ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, 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. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

undisclosed income from other sources of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs,27,00,410/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

PAWAN KUMAR, PROP. LIFE LINE RICE MILLS ,BEGUSARAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), , BEGUSARAI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation of the said delay.\n2.0 The present appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter ‘the\nLd. CIT(A)] dated 29.12.2021 (AY 2012-13) and 19.12.2021 (AY 2013-14).\n2.1 Aggrieved with the action

SAVITRI DEVI,BHOJPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed income without counting the parallel withdrawl? II. Whether A.O was justified in not ensuring the proper service of notice upon the appellant? III. Whether A.O. truly compared the cash deposit before declaring it as not in line with the past account behaviour? IV. Whether 1st appellate authority was justified in dismissal of the case only on the ground

XAVIERS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 2 (2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 349/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Xaviers Construction Pvt. Limited,....……Appellant House No. 239, Lodipur, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaacx0342D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-2(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Anjan Biswas, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is a Private Limited Company, doing its business in developing Real Estate and engaged in civil contract work. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.5,47,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly

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

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

delay is hereby condoned.\n04. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee being an\nindividual and by profession Doctor has filed her return of income for\nthe A.Y. 2016-17, declaring total income at ₹21,73,890/-. The case of\nthe assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notice

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 to 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh 3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were scheduled but the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of consecutive notices. Due to absence

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 to 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh 3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were scheduled but the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of consecutive notices. Due to absence

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 to 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh 3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were scheduled but the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of consecutive notices. Due to absence

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and was reported to be a non-filer. Information was received from Insight portal which suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The assessee sold immovable property valued at Rs.84,23,000/-, received interest on securities amounting

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

condone the delay and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹8,02,45,293/-, which was in violation to the Provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 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 on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed

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

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

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. ITA No.: 343/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Appellate order of the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC)- Delhi. Is bad and erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order

NEERAJ SINHA, HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. AO has erred, and appellate authority confirming the same, in assessing the taxable income of the appellant at Rs. 8,20,830.00 as against the income declared by the appellant

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

condone the delay.\n3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.\nOn perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were\nscheduled but the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of\nconsecutive notices. Due to absence of the ld. AR or lack of\nrepresentations, the Tribunal proceeds to decide the appeals based

KALI KINKAR MANI,PURNEA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15 Kali Kinkar Mani…..…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant 155, Mahaboob Khan Tola, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Arypm9775F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi………………….…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kapil Narayan Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.10.24 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 202 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Due To Chronic Disease & Complete Bed Rest As Per Doctor’S Advice, The Assessee Could Not Able To File The Appeal Timely Before Us & We Note That The Reasons Cited Are Valid & Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Kali Kinkar Mani

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 202 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the petition for condonation of delay, we find that due to chronic disease and complete

BALWANT SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

condone the respective delays and both the appeals of the assesse are admitted for hearing. 3. At the time of hearing neither the assessee nor the ld. AR appeared before the Bench to attend this appeal nor any adjournment application was moved by the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is heard and disposed off with the assistance