ARJUN KUMAR SAH,VAISHALI vs. ITO WARD- 1(3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Credit Care Network Ltd. as per client code provided to the appellant. Since the appellant is not educated so his son Mr. Anant Kumar who got the license to operate above services operated the bank account of the appellant. The income from this business was very low i.e. below the exemption limit so he did not file

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credits. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the case was heard with the assistance of the ld. Departmental Representative (“the Ld. DR”). The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order

PROGRESSIVE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC, CIRCLE 1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 492/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Progressive Life Sciences Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Trimurti Palace, Murgi Bagicha, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaecp0409P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Dc/Ac, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 5, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 27, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee was reopened by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹1,28,82,750/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay

ASHOK BHAGAT,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (5), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Ashok Khad Beez Bhandar, derived income from retail sale of the fertilizers and seeds. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on the premise that there

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 03. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; - “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC) has erred in passing the order confirming the disallowance of Sundry Creditors of the amount of 2,37,71,018 is arbitrary, unjustified

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

credits as alleged so as to reject them while invoking the provisions of section 68/69 of the Act since the addition has been made on the basis of hypothetical situation without providing sufficient opportunity to appellant is not permissible to arrive at such a conclusion. 11. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should be made, your appellant submits

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

credits as alleged so as to reject them while invoking the provisions of section 68/69 of the Act since the addition has been made on the basis of hypothetical situation without providing sufficient opportunity to appellant is not permissible to arrive at such a conclusion. 11. Without prejudice to our ground that no addition should be made, your appellant submits

RAM KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, 3(5), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned. 9. For that the appellant reserves his right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 10. For that the appellant craves leave to urge, add or alter any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions

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

unexplained cash credit by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and was subjected to tax @ 60% under section 115BBE of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹ 55,04,960/-. 6. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before

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

MANI BHUSHAN KUMAR,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the A.O. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing order which

ASIF IQUBAL,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SIWAN

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. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in treating the deposits during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A without looking into the debit entries in the account and transaction in the previous

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

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

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

MAYANK SINGH,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: 01/04/2023, But Could Not Be So Filed As I Was Bed Ridden Due To Dengue & I Was Advised For Complete Bed Rest. We Therefore Pray That Delay In Filing The Appeal Should Be Condoned & It Should Be Treated As Filed Within The Allowed Time.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 1.1 The present appeal emanates from order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 30.01.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred