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 u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1). The assessee did not respond to all those questionaries. The ld. Assessing Officer has to resort initiation of penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1). The assessee did not respond to all those questionaries. The ld. Assessing Officer has to resort initiation of penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1). The assessee did not respond to all those questionaries. The ld. Assessing Officer has to resort initiation of penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1). The assessee did not respond to all those questionaries. The ld. Assessing Officer has to resort initiation of penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

142(1)\n26.11.2019\nCompliance sought on\n29.11.2019\nNotice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b)\n13.12.2019\nLast date to pass penalty order\n30.06.2020\nPenalty Order u/s. 271(1)(b)\n22.12.2021\n12. He referring to the above chart has submitted that the last date of\npassing the penalty order was 30.06.2020. However, the impugned penalty\norder has been passed on 22.12.2021.\n12.1

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

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

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.

142(1) was ever received and hence, did not respond or file return in the re-assessment proceeding. The penalty order which was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance. 4. Aggrieved by the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal, at the time of hearing before

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also for all the three assessment years under consideration has stated that the assessee

AMIT KUMAR VERMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 8. For that the order of the CIT (Appeal) and assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing officer is wrong, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law as well as fact

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

penalty proceeding under the provisions of\nsection 271 (1) (b) & 271 (1) (c) of the Act.\n15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A,\n234B & 234C without making any provisions in the order of assessment\nthere on.\n16. For that

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed

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

142(1) on 13.06.2011. A perusal of the finding of ld. Assessing Officer on page 2 of the impugned order would reveal that the assessee was not very cooperative with the ld. Assessing Officer for submitting the requisite details. The 2 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty under section 271(1

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

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

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