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

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. iii. Ld. CIT (A) erred in enhancing the penalty without issuing show cause. 04. So far as in ITA Nos.54 & 55/PAT/2021 are concerned, the assessee has raised common grounds for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 against levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act and the same reads as under

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

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. iii. Ld. CIT (A) erred in enhancing the penalty without issuing show cause. 04. So far as in ITA Nos.54 & 55/PAT/2021 are concerned, the assessee has raised common grounds for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 against levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act and the same reads as under

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

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. iii. Ld. CIT (A) erred in enhancing the penalty without issuing show cause. 04. So far as in ITA Nos.54 & 55/PAT/2021 are concerned, the assessee has raised common grounds for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 against levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act and the same reads as under

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

271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. iii. Ld. CIT (A) erred in enhancing the penalty without issuing show cause. 04. So far as in ITA Nos.54 & 55/PAT/2021 are concerned, the assessee has raised common grounds for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 against levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act and the same reads as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. SUBHASH PD. YADAV, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief order, which reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) and Survey Operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter

RAINBOW PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). 3 Rainbow Products Pvt. Ltd., AY-2014-15 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section

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. In ITA No. 10/Pat./2017, the only grievance of the assessee

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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/-, which included the additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as assessed income by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings carried out ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 u/s

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.

15. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in real estate business and 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 and subsequently, assessment u/s. 153A/144 was completed at a total

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 15. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

15 acres of\nagricultural land and further that the assessee can produce all the relevant\nevidences to prove that the claim of the assessee is genuine and not bogus.\nWe are of the view that the interests of justice will be well served if the assessee\nis given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer.\nFurther

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

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

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 has failed to appreciate the fact that provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable in the impugned matter

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