ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

30 days from service of the notice. The Assessee has filed its ITR on 12/03/2002 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal regarding validity of reason recorded for re- opening of case. But the fact

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

30 and 32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment P a g e 10 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening of assessment. Though the assessment was reopened

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessments w/s 147 the procedure laid down in sections subsequent to section 139 including that laid down by section 144B has to be followed" It is therefore a settled legal position and also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the AO fails to serve on the assessee the notice within the statutory period provided u/s 143(2

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 13. A bare perusal of sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 13. A bare perusal of sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 13. A bare perusal of sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 13. A bare perusal of sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 13. A bare perusal of sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2016. In response, the assessee e-filed its return on 03.06.2016 declaring total income of ₹8,00,00,000/-. Thereafter notices u/s 143(2

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

30 5. Shahjahan Ahmad Shakil Ahmad, 14B Pocket-B/4, Mayur Bihar, Phase- 3, Delhi-96. 6. Shajih Hasnain S/o- Suleman, Enayat colony, Civil Lines, Gaya. 7. Moinuddin S/o-Late Ekbal Hussain, Nagamtiya Road, Civil Lines, Gaya. 8. Anisur Rahman S/o-Moh. Salim, Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 9. Chhotu alias Vishnu S/o-Late Umesh Prasad Driver, Komandi, Tehta, Gaya. The above mentioned

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

30 5. Shahjahan Ahmad Shakil Ahmad, 14B Pocket-B/4, Mayur Bihar, Phase- 3, Delhi-96. 6. Shajih Hasnain S/o- Suleman, Enayat colony, Civil Lines, Gaya. 7. Moinuddin S/o-Late Ekbal Hussain, Nagamtiya Road, Civil Lines, Gaya. 8. Anisur Rahman S/o-Moh. Salim, Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 9. Chhotu alias Vishnu S/o-Late Umesh Prasad Driver, Komandi, Tehta, Gaya. The above mentioned

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

30 5. Shahjahan Ahmad Shakil Ahmad, 14B Pocket-B/4, Mayur Bihar, Phase- 3, Delhi-96. 6. Shajih Hasnain S/o- Suleman, Enayat colony, Civil Lines, Gaya. 7. Moinuddin S/o-Late Ekbal Hussain, Nagamtiya Road, Civil Lines, Gaya. 8. Anisur Rahman S/o-Moh. Salim, Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 9. Chhotu alias Vishnu S/o-Late Umesh Prasad Driver, Komandi, Tehta, Gaya. The above mentioned

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

30 5. Shahjahan Ahmad Shakil Ahmad, 14B Pocket-B/4, Mayur Bihar, Phase- 3, Delhi-96. 6. Shajih Hasnain S/o- Suleman, Enayat colony, Civil Lines, Gaya. 7. Moinuddin S/o-Late Ekbal Hussain, Nagamtiya Road, Civil Lines, Gaya. 8. Anisur Rahman S/o-Moh. Salim, Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 9. Chhotu alias Vishnu S/o-Late Umesh Prasad Driver, Komandi, Tehta, Gaya. The above mentioned

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

30, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present two appeals are directed at the instance of Revenue against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3 dated 01.03.2021 passed in Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. 2. On receipt of notices in the appeals of Revenue, the assessee