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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4)The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a)"undisclosed income" means- (i)any income

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4)The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a)"undisclosed income" means- (i)any income

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4)The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a)"undisclosed income" means- (i)any income

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4)The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a)"undisclosed income" means- (i)any income

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]

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.S. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271 (1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

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

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.

17, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 08, 2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: 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

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

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

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(1)(c) of the Act. 17. For that

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2) of\nthe Act was issued on 21.12.2018. The questionnaires were issued on\n24.09.2018 along with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. It was observed\nby the Id. AO that during the course of search assessee had deposited\ncash of ₹68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could

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

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2) of\nthe Act was issued on 21.12.2018. The questionnaires were issued on\n24.09.2018 along with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. It was observed\nby the Id. AO that during the course of search assessee had deposited\ncash of ₹68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/-. 3.1. Ld. AO noted that at the fag end of the assessment proceedings on 10.03.2016, ld. AR of the assessee and Shri Abhimanuy Kumar Singh, director of the assessee, appeared and submitted the list of lenders from whom the assessee had taken unsecured loans. However, no documents in support

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2) of\nthe Act was issued on 21.12.2018. The questionnaires were issued on\n24.09.2018 along with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. It was observed\nby the Id. AO that during the course of search assessee had deposited\ncash of ₹68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could