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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the surrendered income of ₹5 crore and\nlevied the impugned penalty vide its order dated 25th March, 2022. When the\nmatter reached before the first appellate authority, we after considering the\nfacts of the case and examining the same in light of the settled judicial\nprecedence has deleted the impugned penalty. Thought

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

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

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

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

section 270A of the Act. Since, 2 ITA Nos. 148-152/Kol/2023 Uma Kant Singh the issues are inter-connected, these five appeals are being disposed of through a single order. For the sake of convenience, the lead case shall be taken as ITA No. 148/Pat/2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 2. In these five cases, the following

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

section 270A of the Act. Since, 2 ITA Nos. 148-152/Kol/2023 Uma Kant Singh the issues are inter-connected, these five appeals are being disposed of through a single order. For the sake of convenience, the lead case shall be taken as ITA No. 148/Pat/2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 2. In these five cases, the following

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

section 270A of the Act. Since, 2 ITA Nos. 148-152/Kol/2023 Uma Kant Singh the issues are inter-connected, these five appeals are being disposed of through a single order. For the sake of convenience, the lead case shall be taken as ITA No. 148/Pat/2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 2. In these five cases, the following

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

section 270A of the Act. Since, 2 ITA Nos. 148-152/Kol/2023 Uma Kant Singh the issues are inter-connected, these five appeals are being disposed of through a single order. For the sake of convenience, the lead case shall be taken as ITA No. 148/Pat/2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 2. In these five cases, the following

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

section 270A of the Act. Since, 2 ITA Nos. 148-152/Kol/2023 Uma Kant Singh the issues are inter-connected, these five appeals are being disposed of through a single order. For the sake of convenience, the lead case shall be taken as ITA No. 148/Pat/2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 2. In these five cases, the following

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.

23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: 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

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.

23-11-2021]. As pointed out earlier, the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act did not furnish any particulars and all the relevant columns have been left blank. Thus, by applying the legal position in the aforementioned decision, this court has no hesitation to hold that the show cause notice