ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

68", "69A", "234A", "234B"], "issues": "1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was validly initiated. 2. Whether the addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained cash credit qua the cash deposit during demonetization period. 2 Sanoj

CHUNNI LAL RAMESHWAR LAL,STATION ROAD SUPAUL vs. ITO WARD 3(5)SAHARSA, SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

demonetization Period, alleging unexplained cash credit u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the I. T . Act 1961 . 3. The Learned

AJAY KUMAR KESHAN,BETTIAH vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 3/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ajay Kumar Keshan,.……………………………Appellant M/S. Abhijeet Service Station, Sowa Babu Chowk, Lal Bazar Bettiah, West Champaran-845438, Bihar [Pan:Abapk5421A] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner,......................Respondent Circle-1, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Vineet Jalan, Ca & Shri Rajaram Choudhury, Ca, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

demonetization period. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.9,65,000/- as unexplained after deducting an amount of Rs.12,85,606/- out of total deposit of Rs.22,50,000/-. 4 Ajay Kumar Keshan 8. After considering the contention of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.9,65,000/- under section 68

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetized currency and the assessee could not offer any valid explanation in this regard." During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has furnished no reply/explanation/submission to substantiate her claim that the impugned amount of Rs 225000/- was available with her in preceding financial year. Further, it is claimed by the appellant that under section 68

SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH HUF,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 r.w. 115BBE of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee being Karta of HUF e- filed the return of income on 05/08/2017 vide Acknowledgement No. 150933280050817 at Total income of Rs 2,90,260/- and Net Agricultural income of Rs. 205000/-. Return filed

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

demonetization period was treated as unexplained cash credit by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act and added

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68" 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has very strangely has stated as under Addition upheld: Rs.107632265 whereas the Assessing Officer has assessed the assessee at Rs.32,28,967/- being 3% NP of alleged turnover determined at Rs.10,76,32,265/- 11. That on the facts and circumstances

KRISHNA MOHAN ,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Krishna Mohan Prop-M/S Maa Ambey Traders, Acit, Circle-14, Patna Maurari Complex, Karbigahiya, Patna, Bihar Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahupm5205C Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

68 to section 69, that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More so, when applicability of section 69 was never within the purview of the Tribunal and not even the case of the Department. I don’t intend to deal further on the issue as to whether the Tribunal has powers to change the provision

JAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. DC,AC CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

demonetization period as unexplained credit amounting to Rs.3,07,75,500/-, (ii) addition to capital account to the assessee as unexplained credit amounting to Rs.10,44,010/- and (iii) addition on account of advances from customers as unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

demonetization period as unexplained credit amounting to Rs.3,07,75,500/-, (ii) addition to capital account to the assessee as unexplained credit amounting to Rs.10,44,010/- and (iii) addition on account of advances from customers as unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68

CHANDRAKANTI,SAHARSA, BIHAR vs. ITO, SAHARSA, BIHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 216/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2017-2018) & I.T.A. No. 217/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Chandrakanti,……………………..……..…………Appellant Shubham Fuels, Salkhuwa, Saharsa-852126, Bihar [Pan:Aeypc7137A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..……………………….....Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act and taxed the same by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% during demonetization

CHANDRAKANTI,SAHARSA, BIHAR vs. ITO, SAHARSA, BIHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 216/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2017-2018) & I.T.A. No. 217/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Chandrakanti,……………………..……..…………Appellant Shubham Fuels, Salkhuwa, Saharsa-852126, Bihar [Pan:Aeypc7137A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..……………………….....Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act and taxed the same by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% during demonetization

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

RAMESH PRASAD GUPTA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 393/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ramesh Prasad Gupta,……………….……..……Appellant 1, Bengali Road, Mithapur B Area, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Acvpg5869L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had deposited cash out of cash sales effected during demonetization

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

demonetization. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 30,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 30,50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.01.2024 partly allowed the appeal. Before

PRERNA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act, after giving the benefit of opening cash balance of Rs. 23,22,604/-. 1.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that before him the same set of facts were presented, as were before the Ld. AO, and hence he dismissed the same as “self

ASHOK BHAGAT,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (5), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

demonetization period and treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and an addition of Rs. 15,55,000/- has been made. The ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,55,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section

LORD VISHNU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Private Limited Vs Patna 101, Lotus Apartment New Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aabcc5141M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2024 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. 18/10/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Through Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Framed U/S 263 Of The Act. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Construction Business. The Regular Return Of Income Furnished Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass On Account Of Two Reasons, Namely, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During

68,481/-. Thereafter, the ld. Pr. CIT called for the assessment records under the powers conferred to him u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the assessee had made cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- each day for a total amount of Rs.27,28,439/- and the same is apparently in contravention to the provisions of Section