AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty order dated 30/03/2024 under section 271(1)(C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay

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

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

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

Long term capital gain : Rs.1,25,05,763/- Total income : Rs.1,27,58,955/- Or Rs.1,27,58,960/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.1,27,58,960/-. Issue Demand Notice, Challan and a copy of the Order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact no. was correctly mentioned on the appellant’s portal for the communication of notices/letter/orders and in consequence, the assessee was not able to file appeal against the said order within

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

long-term capital gain and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus ld. Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,99,250/- (income as per return of income filed u/s

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

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

long term capital gains of Rs. 36,76,169/-. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) declined to 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

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gain in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act held that the balance tax payable against the assessee is at Rs. 8,49,509/-. A penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been initiated. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

long term capital gain. 4) For that the entire assessment order is bad both in law and facts of the case, 5) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 14. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income