AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

20,00,000 RTGS 5. The ld. Assessing Officer on pages no. 2 & 3 of the assessment order has observed that he has received an information, which was flagged on insight portal as uploaded by ld. DIT (Inv.)/ I&CI and such report was downloaded from the portal. According to this report, a survey was conducted in the case

MITHILESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE, by colouring the "deemed incomes" as business income. More so, in cases of unaccounted cash and undisclosed investment/expenditure in purchases, and excess stock assessable under section 69A/69B/69C of the Act. 3.2.1. At the outset, all the decisions quoted and relied upon by the assessee, with regard to non-applicability of Section

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, 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]

10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the records and in the present case, the mention of wrong section is apparently mistake and therefore the jurisdiction

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]

10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the records and in the present case, the mention of wrong section is apparently mistake and therefore the jurisdiction

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]

10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the records and in the present case, the mention of wrong section is apparently mistake and therefore the jurisdiction

DCIT, 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]

10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the records and in the present case, the mention of wrong section is apparently mistake and therefore the jurisdiction

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]

10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the records and in the present case, the mention of wrong section is apparently mistake and therefore the jurisdiction

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

20,000/- through bearer cheques, definitely comes within the purview of Sec. 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. Therefore, total such payments amounting to Rs. 1,44,87,045/- is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 5 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):- On perusal of Books of account

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

20,490/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee

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

20,490/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO 13 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso

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

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO,2(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna Vs Pan: Aaacj 5860 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 20,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13.” 3. Subsequent to above, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. However, no one turned up on the part of assessee since

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10:54 PM SELL 1 1149.80 250 287450.00 0 5.2. The assessee was confronted with the above findings which emerged from the information received from the NMCE, Ahmedabad. Copy of ledger account of few such counter parties were provided to the assessee as per the following details: s. Product Date Broker Counter Party Counter Party Broker No. 21/03/2011 Marina Commotrade