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

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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

78,71,609/- demanded on the basis of unlawful addition of Rs. 27110655/- by estimation of profit and addition under section 68

M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATNA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act which ld. CIT(A) has referred to in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the finding of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1.70 Cr. 7. On the other hand, ld. D/R supported the order of ld. AO as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) favouring

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act which ld. CIT(A) has referred to in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the finding of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1.70 Cr. 7. On the other hand, ld. D/R supported the order of ld. AO as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) favouring

PARAS NATH GUPTA,RAMNA ROAD , GAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in\nview of the above directions

68 by providing identity, genuineness of transactions\nand creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee failed to submit any of\nthe above during the scrutiny proceedings. Due to the failure of the assessee\nto prove that the entries made in the books of account are genuine and\nreliable, the show cause notice was issued by recording the satisfaction for\nrejection

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The appellant filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 30/10/24 after delay of 69 days. The main I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shardindu Prasad Singh. reason of delay in filing of memorandum

ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA vs. SHRI GAURI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES, GAYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………….………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya………….................................……........……....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Survey Was Conducted On 07.02.2017 In The Case Of The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading Business Of Cotton Yarn & Hosiery Yarn. During The Survey, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Made Substantial Deposits In Various Bank Accounts Linked With The Firm. However, The Assessee Disclosed

68,259/-based on such purchase and sale. He has then added the same to the closing stock of Rs.1,69,38,752/- as per the provisional trading and profit and loss account drawn during the course of survey. Thus the A.O. has projected a closing stock of Rs.1,78,07,011/- and after deducting Rs.82,08,143/- which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which