ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

8 with the words "the whole assessment order was based on misappreciation of fact and total confusion of the learned Assessing Officer which can be seen from the following chart". 6.1.2 It is contended that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for clerical mistake of the section under which this exemption is claimed, whether it is section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

house property. Further, estimated the income of the assessee applying net profit of 8% on the gross contract receipts of Rs. 2,39,81,246/- which works out to be Rs. 19,18,500/-. The ld. AO therefore assessed the income of the assessee to Rs. 2,07,82,680/- is against declared total income

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27th December, 2012, Respondent filed a\nfurther appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that there was\nno transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. This was for the reason\nof an amendment made in 2001 to the Indian Registration Act, wherein a transfer

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

8. Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the transfer of 55% of the Land in favour of the Developer

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

8,85,666/- added on account of difference in income shown in\nreturn with that available in Form 26AS.\n2.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhere also he could not succeed mainly for the reason that he did not\nattend to any of the 5 notices sent to him for presenting his submissions\netc

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, 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. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer has not at all given opportunity to explain this fact and passed the assessment order. The ld. 5 Renu Devi Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in a mechanical manner confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. On the other hand

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA 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

8. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Section 124(1) of the Act describes the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers 124.1[(1) Where by virtue of any directions or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

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

8. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Section 124(1) of the Act describes the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers 124.1[(1) Where by virtue of any directions or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

8. For that the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs 15,45,000/- made by the AO on account of assumed deposits in bank under section 69A, on wrong facts of the case, as she is deriving income from various sources of income as accepted by AO and has sufficient assets since 2008 to justify

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property and income from other source, namely interest etc. As observed above, the ld. Assessing Officer has examined all these details and thereafter finalized the assessment. 4. The ld. Pr. Commissioner on perusal of the assessment record formed an opinion that assessment order is suffering from an apparent error and, therefore, it has caused a prejudice to the interest

CHHAYA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 437/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Chhaya Devi,………….…………………….………Appellant New Area Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aakpd7640M] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)…………………………………………….....Respondent New Delhi Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

house property, business and other sources and claimed deduction under section 10AA of the I.T. Act. A series of notices under section 142(1) totaling eight in numbers, were issued along with questionnaire which were complied from time to time. The appellant alsosought hearing through video conference which was conducted on 26.08.2021. Certain queries were made during video conferencing, which

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property. The total income was assessed at ₹ 3,16,98,714/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who considered the facts of the case and noted that despite issuing four notices for hearing, no reply was filed, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 6. Aggrieved

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

8. For that the grounds taken herein above is not prejudicial to each other. 9. For that any other grounds may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹5,88,940/- which was selected for scrutiny

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House-Con Construction & Developer during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14. On perusal of the land development agreement entered into by the assessee on 14/08/2012, it was noted that the assessee and the developer have agreed to the development agreement where full share of 49% of the total land area of 4355.20 Sq.ft owned