PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

section 271(1).” ITA Nos. 09 & 10/Pat./2017 4 Vatsa Construction 10. We, therefore, by respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases delete the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 11

SANJAY KUMAR MODI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sanjay Kumar Modi Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna / 20B, Arya Nagar Colony, Lodi V/S. Katra, Patna City, Patna Pan No.Afupm7073G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Indrajit Singh, Cit, Dr

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

JOANNA GOKAVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MOTIHARI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon’Ble Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi Ito, Ward – 1, Motihari / B-19, Anand Niketan, New V/S. Delhi – 110021. Pan No.Amepg 2067 M अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

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

RANJEET KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL),BEGUSARAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) and the appellant assures all co-operation in future and timely compliance of the notices which are to be placed on e-portal tab 'For your action' followed by real time

SMT URMILA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Urmila Devi..............................…………………………………….......................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Afzpk 6824 L] 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.

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

SMT INDU SINHA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Indu Sinha..............................……………………………………..........................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Aeapd 5840 D] Acit, Central Circle -3, Ranchi …………………………………………................................Respondent Ranchi. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

M/S MANISH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Manish Kumar..............................……………………………………..................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Aapfm 7731 B] 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.

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

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

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

11,75,000/- under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained money having regard to deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 15,35,000/- in Appellant's Bank Account and charging tax on the same under Section 115BEE of the Act, is based on misappreciation of facts and needs to be deleted, as such. 3.1 That the learned NFAC