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

271/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 13th March, 2022, and returned income was accepted. Hon'ble Courts have held time and again that once the assessee furnishes income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, and the same is accepted by the learned Assessing Officer for the purpose of carrying

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

271/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 13th March, 2022, and returned income was accepted. Hon'ble Courts have held time and again that once the assessee furnishes income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, and the same is accepted by the learned Assessing Officer for the purpose of carrying

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

271/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 13th March, 2022, and returned income was accepted. Hon'ble Courts have held time and again that once the assessee furnishes income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, and the same is accepted by the learned Assessing Officer for the purpose of carrying

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

271/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on 13th March, 2022, and returned income was accepted. Hon'ble Courts have held time and again that once the assessee furnishes income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, and the same is accepted by the learned Assessing Officer for the purpose of carrying

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

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

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.

147 r.w.s. 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

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

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

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

147 of the Act, he made the addition in respect of the income\nshown by the assessee from agricultural activities.\n5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Assessing Officer, the\nassessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A)\nconfirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer.\n6. We have heard the rival

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

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 r.w.s 144 and assessed the total income ₹1,26,54,552/-. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the grounds of appeal, the assessment order and has given its finding as under: 9.9 In view of the above discussion, it is found that the appellant made payment amounting

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

section 147 either in the recorded reason or in the sanction u/s 151. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 even though the same has been initiated on mere change of opinion. 10. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences

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

section 147 either in the recorded reason or in the sanction u/s 151. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 even though the same has been initiated on mere change of opinion. 10. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences