BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

34 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai527Delhi351Kolkata315Chennai254Jaipur253Ahmedabad250Pune200Bangalore194Hyderabad174Surat145Indore133Karnataka120Chandigarh95Rajkot67Cochin66Amritsar52Nagpur50Lucknow45Cuttack43Visakhapatnam39Calcutta36Patna34Guwahati26Agra24Raipur22Panaji17Allahabad14Jabalpur13Ranchi11Dehradun9Jodhpur7SC5Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 270A42Penalty29Section 25025Section 271(1)(c)24Section 153A24Addition to Income21Limitation/Time-bar17Section 14716Condonation of Delay16

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 165/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Section 14415
Natural Justice13
Section 14811

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 172/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 163/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 164/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 170/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 166/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

ITA 647/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54F

condone a delay of 778 days in filing of the said appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for inaccurate particular of income of Rs.1,25,05,763/-“. 4. Dissatisfied with this assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). According to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the appeal was time- barred by 150 days. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has considered the explanation

ANJANI KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 14.07.2023. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 592 days. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons being the Counsel failing to appear before

BRAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1),, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/PAT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 175/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 176/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Shagaun, 181, Kalikapur Road, Ward-6(1), Near Icici Bank, Kolkata-700099 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajbpd0707F Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 18.09.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. K. N. Prasad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr
Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 11 days in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 6. Appeal in ITA No. 175/Pat./2017, relates to the quantum additions while the appeal in ITA No. 176/Pat./2017, relates to the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

BRAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1),, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/PAT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 175/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 176/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Shagaun, 181, Kalikapur Road, Ward-6(1), Near Icici Bank, Kolkata-700099 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajbpd0707F Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 18.09.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. K. N. Prasad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr
Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 11 days in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 6. Appeal in ITA No. 175/Pat./2017, relates to the quantum additions while the appeal in ITA No. 176/Pat./2017, relates to the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

DINESH BARANWAL,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MOTIHARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

ITA 593/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a dealer of a telecom service operator, namely M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt. I.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Sri Dinesh Baranwal Ltd., and several sub-dealers operated under the assessee's registration code. Commissions payable to sub-dealers were directly disbursed

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

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

ITA 262/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 261/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

SMT NEELAM KUMARI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Neelam Kumari..............................……………………………………................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Afzpk 6823 P] Acit, Central Circle -3, Patna ..…………………………………………................................Respondent Patna. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order September 22, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 30/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, Wherein, He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By The Assessing Officer . 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer . 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 25 days in filing of this appeal in time. After perusing the petition for condonation

SAVITA DEVI,SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA,BIHAR

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

ITA 157/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed in limine” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee was seeking adjournment but the same was refused as the reason for adjournment were

NARAYANI EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect of ITA No.301/Pat/2023 for assessment year 2013-14. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 was passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A/143

NARAYANI EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect of ITA No.301/Pat/2023 for assessment year 2013-14. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 was passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A/143

NARAYANI EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect of ITA No.301/Pat/2023 for assessment year 2013-14. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 was passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A/143

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its confirmation by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the appellant appeal in his order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order is the subject matter of this 2nd appeal. B. APPELLANT SUBMISSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL Though numbers of grounds