SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 97/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my
For Appellant: Shri Aryan Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 5Section 69A
penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act may be dropped. In the appeal before the Ld.
CIT(Appeals), the appeal was partly allowed and as the turnover of ₹4,22,81,711/- was found to be higher than the amount credited in the bank account at ₹4,05,35,287/-, the credits in bank were found favourable
