VINOD PANDEY,SHIV SAGAR, ROHTAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SASARAM

Accordingly, ITA No.326/Pat/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No.327/Pat/2023 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.326&327/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vinod Pandey………......…………………...........................……….……Appellant Siv Sagar, Rohtas, Bihar-821113. [Pan: Bdqpp7066M] Vs. Ito, Sasaram…………....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

cash deposits in quantum and a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the ‘Act’) has also

VINOD PANDEY,SHIV SAGAR, ROHTAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SASARAM

Accordingly, ITA No.326/Pat/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas ITA No.327/Pat/2023 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.326&327/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vinod Pandey………......…………………...........................……….……Appellant Siv Sagar, Rohtas, Bihar-821113. [Pan: Bdqpp7066M] Vs. Ito, Sasaram…………....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

cash deposits in quantum and a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the ‘Act’) has also

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

u/s 143(21 &. 142(1) of the I. T. Act. 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to departmental notices, ld. AR of assessee appeared from time to 2 Anil Kumar Sah time and produced the documents, which were examined. As per the direction of the CASS Selection, it is found that the cash deposit in saving

VIJAY KUMAR PANDAV,KHAGARIA vs. I.T.O., WARD -6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 57/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Pandav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Chukti Mansi, Ward-6(4), Distt. Khagaria-851214 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agapp0171D Assessee By : Sh. Manish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

cash deposit u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 29.03.2014. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

BASUDEV PRASAD GUPTA,KISHANGANJ vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

cash deposits made into the bank accounts of the assessee for the sum of Rs.1534,000/- is considered as unexplained money of the assessee that was deposited into bank a/cs. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the sum of Rs.26.64.500/- [Rs.11,30,500/- + Rs.15,34,000/-] is hereby added in the hands of assessee u/s

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

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

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

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

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.

u/s 144 of the Act, for the reason that the Id assessing officer could have resorted to estimation of profit rather than treating the entire cash deposits as undisclosed income. 4 Manoj Kumar Das 16. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued calling for the bank statement and other details. On perusal of the bank statement, it was found that the assessee had deposited a sum of ₹1,17,84,500/- during the demonetisation period. 3 Sunita Devi AY: 2017-18 Further, on perusal of P & L A/c and balance sheet of the appellant

OMJEE PRASAD,SARAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHAPRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sanjay Sarma]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c ) of I.T Act, 1961. 4. Against the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 06.03.2019. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the time

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and had earnings from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had given a power of attorney to Sri Satish

SH. MHESHWAR SINGH,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the „Act‟) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,dated 08.11.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section144 of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh “1. That the learned "NFAC

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books