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)

disallowance at Rs. 1,00,23,684/- and added the same under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. RISHAV DUTTA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of Rs. 1 50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80C of the I. T. Act:- 2 Rishav Dutta, AY: 2017-18 (a) by admitting fresh evidences/documents such as paper book containing books of account and other documents produced before him without providing reasonable opportunity to the A.O. to examine such evidences in violation of Rule

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of 1.T. Act, 1961 treating the said amount as bogus is unwarranted, unjustified misleading the facts. Since the sundry creditors amounting to 2,37,71,018.00 is not related to only for this Asstt. Yr. 2015-16. As because it includes 1,13, 20,437/- for earlier yrs. 3. That under the facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

credit. Apart from this addition, he further observed that a document inventorized as GIB- 12, page no. 8 recovered during the search conducted on Subhash Prasad Yadav Group cases. A perusal of this document would reveal that a sum of Rs.5,50,00,000/- has been transferred to Shri Sanjay Singh (PAN has been given by the ld. Assessing Officer

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

credit. Apart from this addition, he further observed that a document inventorized as GIB- 12, page no. 8 recovered during the search conducted on Subhash Prasad Yadav Group cases. A perusal of this document would reveal that a sum of Rs.5,50,00,000/- has been transferred to Shri Sanjay Singh (PAN has been given by the ld. Assessing Officer

SANJAY KUMAR ALIAS SANJAY KR. YADAV vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am Sanjay Kumar Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Patna Alias Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Prop. Hotel Palika & Wine Shop, Goria Toli, Station Road, Patna स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Afypk 5085 L निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit-Dr

unexplained cash deposit into bank account (III) For that the humble appellant craves for leave of the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna Bench Patna to take raise press plead and /or argue any other ground or grounds as may arise hereinafter or during the hearing of the appeal: RELIEFS CLAIMED A. The impugned assessment order be kindly quashed, cancelled, annulled

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that Rs.11

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening being bad in law and illegal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) stating that all the information relating to the alleged cash credits have been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act and there being no fresh information /material with the ld. Assessing

BIR BABU PANDEY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO WARD 2(4), SIWAN

disallowance Rs.17,13,500/- is arbitrary and is therefore requested to be deleted. 3. The addition difference of Sundry creditors of Rs. 10,94,345/- was done arbitrarily without examining books of accounts & evidences produced before AO during scrutiny, AO in remand report & CIT(A), therefore this addition of Rs. 10,94,345/- is requested to be deleted.” 3. Brief

SAJJAN BAJAJ vs. PR. C. I. T.,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit. He pointed out that once the books are rejected, then, no cognizance could be taken qua the payments made in violation to section 40A(3) and, therefore, this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. Commissioner. 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT(DR) contended that in the assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer failed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act for which taxes should have been charges as per provisions of u/s 115BBE. 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order/notice of the A.O. be restored. 7. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete, and modify

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)

cash credit and added to the total income. 5. The Assessing Officer also noticed unrecorded purchases amounting to ₹9,59,500 based on comparison of purchase entries, which were not found recorded in the books of account. The said amount was added to the total income as unexplained expenditure. Further, an amount of ₹1,40,000 was disallowed

GURUDWARA BAL LEELA MAINI SANGAT TRUST,PATNA vs. DC/AC, EXEMPTION, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance unless the prescription in the Section as mandated is not satisfied. 5. For that the learned assessing officer has erred in adding a sum of 31,78,100 on account of cash deposits in bank on different dates as unexplained money 2 I.T.A. No. 299/Pat/2024 Gurudwara Bal Leela Maini Sangat Trust under Section 69A read with Section