ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

VEENA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

reassessment proceeding U//s 147 of the IT Act and no addition was made by the AO as such AO has no jurisdiction to assess any other income. 5. For that the Learned PCIT should have appreciated the fact and law that it has been decided by apex court that "if in the course of proceeding U/s 147

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

147 of\nthe ITA, and the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 due to the\nassessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal\nfor non-payment of advance tax, citing Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The\nassessee argued that since the income was exempt u/s 10(25)(ii), no return\nwas required

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

73 ITR (Trib) 9 (Del.) held that non-service of notice deprives the assessee of the opportunity to present his case, rendering the entire reassessment invalid. (7) Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mullajeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) held that improper service of notice invalidates the entire proceedings. In Dr. K.C. Verma