SH. MHESHWAR SINGH,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the „Act‟) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,dated 08.11.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section144 of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh “1. That the learned "NFAC

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

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

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 the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. 5. We also note that while

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 69A of the Act and I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which

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

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

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

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

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

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. With regard to the difference of deposits in bank and remittance to Insurance Companies through SBI Bank Account, the ld. CIT(Appeals

SAVITA DEVI,SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA,BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69A. 4 The appellant is a woman of very limited means and she never had term deposits of such huge amount. During FY 2014-15, the appellant had actually made term deposit of amount of Rs. 5.33 lacs on 30.03.2015 was ITA No.: 157/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Savita Devi. Corporation Bank, representing her major savings, For your reference