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

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

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

20-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHRI DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), This Penalty Was Deleted But, As Has Been Pointed Out By The Ld. Ar, The Impugned Order Is Passed In The Name Of Dudheshwar Nath Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna – 800023 (Status Of “Individual”).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2008 in the case of M/s D.N. Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna (status of “firm”). 1.1 The facts in brief are that apparently the assessee firm was an accused in some Bitumen Scam. In assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs. 2,22,20,400/- was made and penalty was also levied

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

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

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 48 of the Act held that the balance tax payable against the assessee is at Rs. 8,49,509/-. A penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been initiated. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there

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

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

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

20 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the 28-05-2025. Through this appeal should have been filed

BASUDEV PRASAD GUPTA,KISHANGANJ vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee contended that he is engaged in the business of seasonal products and stone chips from which gross turnover of Rs.26,03,000/- was achieved. The assessee has declared income of Rs.2,81,328/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a cash deposit of Rs.75