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.

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated on the basis of cash deposits made in bank. 12. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in not disclosing the details of the bank account/s in the impugned assessment order, on the basis of which the additions have been made

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

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

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. For that the humble appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble ITAT to take, raise, press, plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds which may arise during the course of hearing of the appeal. “ (b) in ITA No. 68/Pat/2020: 1. The learned AO & CIT (A) have grossly erred in taking an assumption

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. For that the humble appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble ITAT to take, raise, press, plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds which may arise during the course of hearing of the appeal. “ (b) in ITA No. 68/Pat/2020: 1. The learned AO & CIT (A) have grossly erred in taking an assumption

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

68, (i.e. Rs.13,63,773/- plus Rs.2,06,932/-) and addition made for undisclosed Bank interest amounting to Rs.38,077/-)] and initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

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

68 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The appellant filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 30/10/24 after delay of 69 days. The main I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shardindu Prasad Singh. reason of delay in filing of memorandum

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,200/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained income u/s 69A and passed the assessment order u/s 144 dated 30.10.2019. Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and very perused the record and the submissions made were also examined. We find that

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

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

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

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

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

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

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

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

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

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

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

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account