ROHIT KHANDELWAL,MADHUBANI vs. AC/DCIT, CENT, CIR, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

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

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

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

sections": ["148", "147", "143(3)", "68", "69A", "234A", "234B"], "issues": "1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar\nfrom Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the\nId. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi,\nunder Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the Id. Addl.\nCIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

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

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority. 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee failed to give any explanation before the ld. Assessing Officer about the nature of source of cash deposits during the demonetization period, which was deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A

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

69A in the hands of the assessee, and the most critical thing to be examined in this regard is explanation of the assessee with respect to these credits. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute on the fundamental legal position that the onus is on the assessee to prove 'bonafides' or 'genuineness' of the money credited

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

69A as unexplained money and taxed as per section 115BBE, therefore, the ground on this issue was dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The issue relating to the levy of charging interest is concerned, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that levy of interest is mandatory as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the opening balance of Proprietor's Capital (being the closing balance as on 31/03/2015

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

69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in construction activity. It has filed its return of income on 13th October, 2016 declaring taxable income of Rs.35,36,520/-. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter observed that

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

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

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

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)

section 68 previous year savings can't be treated as unexplained income. On perusal of assessment order it is noticed that the assessing officer has specifically has mentioned that the addition is being made u/s 69A

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

68 of the Act in the assessment farmed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- “I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, Remand report

BABULAL PRASAD SUJIT KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 276/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Babulal Prasad Sujit Kumar,……………….…Appellant Purani Bazar, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aalfb9242J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Central Circle-Muzaffarpur, Chabdralok Bhawan, Near Chandralok Market, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,03,565/- being the difference between the cash found on the date of survey amounting to Rsa.7,36,950/- minus sales made in cash estimated on ad hoc basis at Rs.2

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

69A of the IT Act. 5 For that the application of section 115BBE has been incorrectly applied, since the source of deposit of cash is verifiable. 6 For that the cash deposit could have been, at the most, be considered as turnover of the business and net profit @ 8% as per provisions of section 44AD should have been

MURLIDHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar\nfrom Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the\nId. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi,\nunder Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the Id. Addl.\nCIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar\nfrom Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the\nId. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi,\nunder Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the Id. Addl.\nCIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

MURLIDHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar\nfrom Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the\nId. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi,\nunder Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the Id. Addl.\nCIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This