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

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

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

143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee had declared additional income in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for alleged under reporting of income. However, the assessee filed an application belatedly u/s 270AA of the Act for grant

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

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

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

143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee had declared additional income in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for alleged under reporting of income. However, the assessee filed an application belatedly u/s 270AA of the Act for grant

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

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

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

143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee had declared additional income in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for alleged under reporting of income. However, the assessee filed an application belatedly u/s 270AA of the Act for grant

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

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

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

143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee had declared additional income in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for alleged under reporting of income. However, the assessee filed an application belatedly u/s 270AA of the Act for grant

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

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

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

143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee had declared additional income in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for alleged under reporting of income. However, the assessee filed an application belatedly u/s 270AA of the Act for grant

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.

143(1), and no demand was raised. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued, and the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide order dated 09.12 2019, estimating income and initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) of the act. The AO levied penalty of Rs.1,53,232 under Section 271(1)(c) vide

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is regional rural bank and had filed its return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction on account of brought forward losses and deductions u/s 80P of the Act. The deduction u/s 80P was withdrawn from the statute w.e.f Asst Year

GANESH RAM DOKANIA,BANKA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2014-15 Ganesh Ram Dokania………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dokania Market, Aliganj, Bihar-813102.. [Pan: Aadfg1795P] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Patna…….………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Real Estate Business & The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 15.11.2016 In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Subsequently, Assessment U/S. 153A/144 Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs.25,67,79,232/- Wherein The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty U/S. 271Aab Of The Act At Rs. 1,60,00,000/- On Undisclosed Income.

143(2) of the Act was issued and subsequently, assessment u/s. 153A/144 was completed at a total income of Rs.25,67,79,232/- wherein the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- on undisclosed income. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

143(3) of the Act, however,\nin relation to the other assessment years except AY 2017-18, the assessments\nframed are ex parte assessments u/s. 144/147 of the Act.\n7. So far as the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned,\nthe Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee could not furnish his\nsubmissions 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

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 has concealed the income, therefore, initiated the proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalties as mentioned hereinabove. The assessee preferred appeals before the Id. CIT(A), the Id. CIT(A) reduced

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

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 has concealed the income, therefore, initiated the proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalties as mentioned hereinabove. The assessee preferred appeals before the Id. CIT(A), the Id. CIT(A) reduced

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

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 has concealed the income, therefore, initiated the proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalties as mentioned hereinabove. The assessee preferred appeals before the Id. CIT(A), the Id. CIT(A) reduced

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act and he issued questionnaires also under section 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

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act and he issued questionnaires also under section 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

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act and he issued questionnaires also under section 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

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act and he issued questionnaires also under section 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

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

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the profit of Rs.3,73,827/- which is estimated @ 8% of the Gross receipt. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. For that