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

68 of the Act which\nis not correct section under this addition could be made. The case of\nthe assessee is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the\ncase of Ragini Verma Vs ACIT Circle-49(1), Kolkata in ITA\nNo.1361/KOL/2023 for A.Y.2017-18, order dated 13-06-2024. The\noperating part thereof is extracted as under

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

37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad- in-law.” 12. As discussed above, the reasons recorded

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

37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad- in-law.” 12. As discussed above, the reasons recorded

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

37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad- in-law.” 12. As discussed above, the reasons recorded

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

37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad- in-law.” 12. As discussed above, the reasons recorded

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

37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad- in-law.” 12. As discussed above, the reasons recorded

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act. She further stated that even in the affidavits/confirmations submitted by nine lenders out of the total eighteen lenders, no details in respect of their PAN, ITR, Balance Sheet were furnished so as to enable the Ld. AO to carry out appropriate verification and examination of the loan transactions. She further submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S ASHA REALTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

37,68,000\nPlaza\nS.G.\n97.37%\n19825\n14684\n74.07\n4,75,58,147\n3,74,24,102\n3,84,34,500\n10,10,398\nSmriti\nB.L.\n27.12%\n22355\n7641\n34.18\n1,79,05,051\n65,21,687\n2,40,47,530\n1,75,25,843\nSinghania\nAsha\n22.11%\n46165\n8754\n18.98\n19069421\nNil

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 cash deposits during demonetization period as made by the Assessing Officer, then the same would result into double taxation because the same income has already been offered tax by filing return of income. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the sales and not even rejected the books of accounts. Therefore

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

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

37,71,018/- for unexplained sundry creditors under Section 68 of the Act. We note that the assessee is a partnership

AMUL FEED PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.184/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amul Feed Pvt. Ltd……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Shakti Punj, Ashoka Vihar Biscomaum Colony, Patna, Bihar - 800007. [Pan: Aafca0769E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singhal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Nfac ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Passed An Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Making An Addition Of Rs.1,37,39,437 As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Act, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Further Made Another Addition Of Rs.1,00,88,000 As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act, Again Invoking Section 115Bbe & Taxing The Same At The Rate Of 60%. 3. Aggrieved By The Said Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Ex Parte For Non-Compliance With The Notices Issued By The

37,39,437 as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Act, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made another addition of Rs.1,00,88,000 as unexplained credit under section 68

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

37,63,600/- 1. 2. Sri Janak Kumar Singh 43,30,000/- 3. Sri Baramdev Yadav 28,60,400/- 4. Sri Ashok Yadav 32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report

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

37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein it was held as under – “The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

37 days. 4. That the assessee states that the reason for delay is that the assessee is suffering from HIV AIDS and is constantly under treatment. Copy of medical treatment is enclosed. 2 Manoj Kumar Das 5. That the petitioner states that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the genuine and bona

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

section 44AD of the Act, ld. CIT(A) by accepting the said claim, recomputed the calculations made by the ld. AO by taking net profit rate of 8% which comes to Rs.1,37,100/-. Total income was thus re-computed by ld. CIT(A) by including interest income of Rs.3,68

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S TARAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68. However, with regard to the first addition, the Tribunal did not concur with the ld. CIT(Appeals) and reverse its finding. The Tribunal has restored the finding of the Assessing Officer qua determination of income from business and profession at Rs.8,37

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

37 PM SELL 2 1149.80 250 574900.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:50 PM SELL 8 1149.80 250 2299600.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:54 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

SHANKAR PRASAD,NALANDA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.04/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Prasad…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant S/O Yogendra Prasad, Vill-Asthawan, P.O – Asthawan, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Bihar-803107. [Pan: Avnpp3389B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.11.2024 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,37,13,000/- From Current Account Maintained With Canara Bank During F.Y 2017-18 & The Assessee Did Not File Any Itr. Therefore, The Assessing Officer After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Issued Notice U/S 147 R.W.S 148A Of The Act Through Email. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed His Return After A

37,13,000/- from current account maintained with Canara Bank during F.Y 2017-18 and the assessee did not file any ITR. Therefore, the Assessing Officer after obtaining approval from the competent authority issued notice u/s 147 r.w.s 148A of the Act through email. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return after a I.T.A. No.04/Pat/2025 Assessment Year