BRIJESH KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed Rs. 61,19,226/-, forfeiture of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A Rs. 1,45,316/- and cash deposited during the demonetization

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

demonetization period. 2 Sanoj Kumar Singh 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a retailer carrying on the business of Poultry Feeds in the name and style of M/s S K Poultry. The return of income was filed on 28.09.2017 showing total income at ₹ 12,96,410/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

demonetization period”. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) 2 S. Ranjan & Brothers A.Y. 2017-18 and 142(1) of the Act issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee appeared time to time before the AO furnishing various details as asked for. During the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noticed that the assessee has made payment

RAJESH KUMAR BHADANI,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

demonetization period as unexplained income u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 which is wrong illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.50,94,500/- u/s 69 treating the same as unexplained money in terms of u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, illegal and unjustified

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C may be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence available with the appellant”. 3. The Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 212 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a petition before the ITAT dated 30th June, 2025 in support of condonation of delay

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

demonetization period.\n4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s\nRamesh Enterprises which deals in FMCG products like tea, perfume\nand Oil etc. The learned AO noted that the assessee deposited of\n₹1,12,30,000/- on several occasions from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016,\nwhich was stated to be deposited cash out of accumulated

DIVYA PRAKASH,BHOJPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

demonetization period. In support of his claim statement of bank account, books of accounts and sale and purchase bills and invoices were produced. Books of account so produced were cross checked and examined on test check basis. The case was 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Divya Prakash discussed and heard with him. His total incomes determined as under: Travelling & Conveyance

PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

disallowed 30 percent of amount of Freight paid to the transporters who have given declaration for non-deduction of TDS in compliance of Section 194C(6) but failed to file statement in Form 26Q as required U/s 194C(7) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 2. Ground 2. For that CIT(A) could not consider the fact that all freight

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

demonetization period though it was not stated in the notice that whether it was limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny. The case of the assessee supported by the decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench in case of Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6767/Del/2019 dated 12.06.2020, held as under:- “6.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have

CHOTE LAL YADAV,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), SIWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.293/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chole Lal Yadav…..… ……….. …..…..……………………....Appellant Prop: Ritu Brahm Filling Station, Moglanipur, Asaon, Siwan, Bihar – 841226. [Pan: Abfpy7309A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 4 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Run A Petrol Pump & Filed His Return Of Income On 29.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,27,310/-. Therafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On Account Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization & Subsequently Notices U/S

demonetization and subsequently notices u/s I.T.A. No.293/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chole Lal Yadav 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee debited Rs.1,17,52,120/- in Profit & Loss A/c under the head ‘contract expenses’. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee was not maintained books