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]

292(8) of the Act and therefore inference can only be drawn on the facts and provisions of law of the Act after long drawn discussion. Therefore under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked

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]

292(8) of the Act and therefore inference can only be drawn on the facts and provisions of law of the Act after long drawn discussion. Therefore under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked

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]

292(8) of the Act and therefore inference can only be drawn on the facts and provisions of law of the Act after long drawn discussion. Therefore under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked

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]

292(8) of the Act and therefore inference can only be drawn on the facts and provisions of law of the Act after long drawn discussion. Therefore under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked

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]

292(8) of the Act and therefore inference can only be drawn on the facts and provisions of law of the Act after long drawn discussion. Therefore under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor's Colony,\nKankarbagh, patna, which according to the Id. AO could not be\nexplained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the\nassessee. The Id. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits\nwere made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF,\nhaving no bank account

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor’s Colony, Kankarbagh, patna, which according to the ld. AO could not be explained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee. The ld. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits were made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF, having no bank account

SMT. ANITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

68,293/- with Punjab National bank, Doctor’s Colony, Kankarbagh, patna, which according to the ld. AO could not be explained and accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee. The ld. AO noted that the assessee replied that the deposits were made out of the agricultural income of Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF, having no bank account