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

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025

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.

144 dated 09.12.2019 which gave rise to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), has been remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2025. Accordingly, the penalty becomes premature and unsustainable in law at this stage. We, therefore, direct that the penalty of Rs.1,53,232/- levied u/s

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

271(1)(b) as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 15. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 16. For that the appellant reserves its right

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty amounting to 42,31,654 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act merely on the ground that the additions in the order of assessment form part of income particulars whereof he has concealed notwithstanding the fact that firstly, there is no allegation in the notice as to whether, there is a furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

u/s.\n271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are barred by limitation, hence, the same are\naccordingly quashed.\n13. In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and\n413/Pat/2024 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes whereas the\nassessee's appeals ITA Nos. 412, 414, 415 and 416/Pat/2024 are hereby\nallowed.\nOrder

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

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 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

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

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 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

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

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 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

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

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 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and had earnings from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had given a power of attorney to Sri Satish

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

144, read with w.r.s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961 vide order dated 06.12.2019 and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer 2 Renu Devi made an addition of Rs.22,96,688/ on account of capital gain and demanded tax of Rs.4,73,118/- and Rs.2,31,828/- as interest

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and section 271(1)(b) of the Act and also by sustaining levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. That the NFAC has erred in law and facts in issuing the order under Section 144

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

u/s 144 of the Act, for the reason that the Id assessing officer could have resorted to estimation of profit rather than treating the entire cash deposits as undisclosed income. 4 Manoj Kumar Das 16. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271

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

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

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

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 in appeal before