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) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty

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) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty

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) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty

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) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income. Appellant has disclosed total income voluntarily and during the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer could not deviate from the same. Several Jurisdictional Pronouncement have established that the provisions of the section 271(l)(c) o the Act can be invoked only for the concealment of income or for filing

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

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.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Contrary to that

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

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b)\n13.12.2019\nLast date to pass penalty order\n30.06.2020\nPenalty Order u/s. 271(1)(b)\n22.12.2021\n12. He referring to the above chart has submitted that the last date of\npassing the penalty order was 30.06.2020. However, the impugned penalty\norder has been passed on 22.12.2021.\n12.1. The Ld. DR has also fairly admitted that

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”).

271(1)(c) by not specifying the nature of default i.e. penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable to be cancelled. In deciding the issue the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it was just a clerical error or omission which is protected u/s 292B

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is 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

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed