ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-31
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. NeAC
ITA 437/PAT/2025 · AY 2018–19
Sections 44AB / 271B / reasonable cause
Facts of the case
BIADA failed to obtain and furnish the section 44AB tax audit report. It argued that no assessment addition or Revenue loss had occurred, but did not demonstrate a specific reasonable cause.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraph 6 holds that section 273B places the burden of proving reasonable cause on the taxpayer. Acceptance of returned income does not explain the audit failure. The Tribunal distinguishes a precedent involving delayed statutory-auditor appointment and confirms the section 271B penalty.
Judicial decision
Appeal dismissed — ₹1,50,000 audit penalty confirmed
Outcome — in favour of
Revenue - audit penalty confirmed.
AKHB review point
Maintain the audit appointment, completion and filing calendar. If delayed, document the actual impediment, correspondence and causal link; absence of a tax addition or government ownership alone is not a reasonable-cause defence.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶2–7 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-27
New Era Social Development Welfare Society v. DC/AC (Exemption)
ITA 534/PAT/2025 · AY 2020–21
Section 13 / specified-person payments
Facts of the case
The educational society’s salary and rent payments to specified persons were questioned under section 13. AO treated 50% as excessive; CIT(A) gave further partial relief. The remaining dispute reached ITAT.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraphs 8–9 uphold CIT(A)’s order. The Tribunal examines individual salary increases, including 38.80% for two persons, and the adequacy of justification for the payments. The existing appellate relief remains; the order does not lay down an automatic disallowance percentage for all related-person payments.
Judicial decision
Appeal dismissed — CIT(A) order upheld
Outcome — in favour of
Revenue on the taxpayer’s remaining appeal - CIT(A) order upheld; earlier partial appellate relief remains.
AKHB review point
Document actual services, responsibilities, qualifications and independent remuneration/rent benchmarks. Support building use and related-party disclosures with contemporaneous records; banking-channel payment alone does not prove reasonableness.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶2–4 & 8–9 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-24
Amresh Kumar v. ITO
ITA 33/PAT/2026 · AY 2015–16
Bank deposits / de novo assessment
Facts of the case
A ₹28,49,751 addition concerned unexplained deposits. Before AO the explanation related to SBI Customer Service Point transactions; before ITAT it referred to past withdrawals and matured fixed deposits.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraph 5 remands for an opportunity to substantiate the claim and directs a de novo assessment uninfluenced by the previous assessment. The Tribunal does not accept either source explanation conclusively or delete the addition outright.
Judicial decision
Partly allowed for statistical purposes — remand to AO
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer - procedural opportunity by remand; addition not finally deleted.
AKHB review point
Prepare a consistent transaction-wise chronology, withdrawal-to-redeposit trail, fixed-deposit maturity evidence and CSP/customer records as relevant. Explain any change from earlier submissions with supporting evidence.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶2–6 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-19
Reeshav Automobiles v. ITO
ITA 228/PAT/2026 · AY 2023–24
Bank reconciliation / profit estimation
Facts of the case
An automobile dealer challenged SBI bank-credit, Axis cash-deposit, estimated-profit and insurance-commission additions. The disputed SBI difference was ₹86,22,18,204; a bank certificate identified interbank transfers of ₹78,81,35,150.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraph 11 sends the SBI difference to AO for verification and reconciliation; it is not a final deletion. Paragraphs 12–13.1 delete the ₹3,25,22,905 profit-estimation addition on these facts. Paragraph 14 deletes ₹2,18,09,380 of Axis deposits recorded as business receipts. Paragraph 15 deletes ₹9,34,700 insurance commission already offered as income. Paragraphs 16–17 record the mixed outcome.
Judicial decision
Partly allowed — three additions deleted; SBI issue remanded
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer on three deleted additions; SBI reconciliation issue remanded, with no final relief on that item.
AKHB review point
Reconcile gross bank credits to turnover, transfers, loans and capital with bank evidence. For recorded receipts, trace the ledger and income recognition to test duplicate additions. Support profit margins with the books and comparable prior-year results. Complete the separate SBI remand evidence.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶11–17; operative findings on pp.32–38 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-19
Malti Devi v. ITO
ITA 230/PAT/2026 · AY 2016–17
Joint development / capital gains
Facts of the case
A registered JDA dated 3 September 2015 led to capital gains being assessed in AY 2016–17. The order records later RERA registration and delivery of the owner’s constructed share on 1 October 2024.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraphs 9–10 hold that no transfer arose under section 2(47)(v) in the disputed year on these facts; the agreement terms matter. The Tribunal also directs AO under section 150 to initiate section 147 proceedings for AY 2025–26, or verify the computation if the gain was already offered. The result is not exemption from capital gains in every year.
Judicial decision
Allowed in stated terms — AY 2016–17 relief; later-year direction
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer for the disputed AY 2016-17 transfer issue; later-year assessment or verification direction retained.
AKHB review point
Review the JDA, possession rights, construction chronology and later-year return together. Address the AY 2025–26 direction and applicable computation/exemption conditions; do not generalise that every registered JDA defers tax until completion.
Source discrepancy
The order refers to a 122-day delay while the reproduced condonation petition says 127 days. The delay was condoned; this summary does not select one figure.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶3–4 & 9–11 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-17
ACIT v. Shakuntala Jewellers Private Limited
ITA 353/PAT/2025 · AY 2016–17
Purchase verification / section 68
Facts of the case
Revenue challenged CIT(A)’s deletion of purchase-verification additions and a section 68 cash-credit addition. The Tribunal noted incomplete vendor addresses, limited invoice particulars and unreconciled supplier differences.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraph 9 remits the issues raised by Revenue to AO for detailed examination. It questions the absence of adequate verification or a remand report before appellate relief. The taxpayer must substantiate the claims with cogent documents. Neither the original additions nor their deletion were finally confirmed on merits.
Judicial decision
Revenue appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes — remand to AO
Outcome — in favour of
Revenue - procedural remand on its appeal; merits of additions remain open.
AKHB review point
Compile vendor identity and address, purchase particulars, payments, stock movement, supplier reconciliation and the bank-to-cash-book bridge. Where appellate evidence needs verification, make the verification record explicit.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶1–4 & 9–10 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-17
Bijay Kumar Chandgothia v. ITO
ITA 40/PAT/2026 · AY 2020–21 (cover page)
Section 270A / Form 68 immunity
Facts of the case
A ₹11,99,000 section 56(2)(x) amount was offered in the reassessment return. The dispute concerned section 270A penalty and section 270AA immunity where the taxpayer claimed timely tax payment but Form 68 was treated as belated.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraphs 6–8 follow Punam Kanwar Bhati v. ITO and treat the Form 68 filing lapse as procedural in the circumstances, allowing the appeal. This is fact-specific relief, not permission to disregard the statutory filing requirement.
Judicial decision
Appeal allowed — relief in the penalty dispute
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer - relief in the penalty dispute on the stated facts.
AKHB review point
Preserve tax/interest payment evidence, demand-service dates, Form 68 acknowledgements and the assessment-appeal position. Keep the statutory filing discipline; use the decision only after checking comparable facts and applicable law.
Source discrepancy
The cover states AY 2020–21 while running headers state “2022–21”. Penalty figures and the Form 68 chronology also differ between grounds and narrative. The note follows the operative disposition and does not adopt a disputed penalty amount.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶2 & 6–8 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-10
Vidya Vihar Educational Trust v. ACIT (Exemption)
ITA 311/PAT/2026 · AY 2027–28 (as printed)
Section 12AB / trust deed
Facts of the case
Regular registration was refused because the dissolution clause allowed assets to pass to an institution founded by a majority of the trustees, raising concerns about irrevocable charitable dedication.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
In paragraph 7 the Tribunal found that irrevocability could be inferred from other deed provisions. It set aside the rejection and remanded the issue to CIT(E) to examine the deed. The trust must highlight the relevant clauses and/or submit a modified deed. Registration itself was not granted by this order.
Judicial decision
Partly allowed for statistical purposes — registration reconsideration
Outcome — in favour of
Trust - registration rejection set aside for reconsideration; registration not granted by the order.
AKHB review point
Read the deed as a whole and cross-reference irrevocability, dissolution and asset-transfer clauses in the registration submission. Supply any legally effected amendment for consideration; do not present this remand as a final registration approval.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶3–8 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-10
Mohammed Tanweer Alam v. PCIT (Central)
ITA 313/PAT/2026 · AY 2022–23
Section 263 / unexplained income
Facts of the case
The assessment added ₹30 lakh concerning undisclosed property investment and ₹47 lakh concerning cash found during search, without invoking the appropriate deeming provisions and special tax treatment. PCIT also questioned use of the penalty provision.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
Paragraphs 9–10 uphold the revision: omission to apply the correct provisions and section 115BBE caused loss of tax and made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. PCIT’s directions for necessary enquiry and a fresh assessment remained effective. The Tribunal did not itself complete that fresh assessment.
Judicial decision
Appeal dismissed — revision under section 263 upheld
Outcome — in favour of
Revenue - section 263 revision upheld; fresh assessment still to follow.
AKHB review point
Map each search disclosure to its underlying evidence, source, applicable provision and relevant year. Maintain an enquiry trail and examine the tax and penalty consequences separately; a surrender alone does not settle its statutory classification.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶3, 7 & 9–10 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-08-04
Satya Prakash Dhruv v. ITO
ITA 360/PAT/2026 · AY 2024–25
Deductions / ex parte appeal
Facts of the case
Salary exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions, including a political donation claim, had been disallowed. The first appeal was dismissed after the taxpayer failed to respond.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
In paragraph 6 the Tribunal remitted the disputed claims to CIT(A) for fresh examination with a reasonable hearing opportunity. It required cogent supporting documents and cooperation. No deduction was finally allowed on its merits.
Judicial decision
Partly allowed for statistical purposes — remand to CIT(A)
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer - procedural remand and hearing opportunity; deductions not finally allowed.
AKHB review point
Prepare a claim-by-claim evidence file covering exemption eligibility, payments and deduction conditions. Comply promptly in remand proceedings; an opportunity to be heard is not substantive tax relief.
Verification scope: User-supplied tribunal order; ¶¶2–7 reviewed. Subsequent proceedings and independent official-portal authentication not verified.
ITAT · Patna · Order 2026-02-04
Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
ITA 508/PAT/2025 · AY 2014–15
Appeal limitation
Facts of the case
The order records communication on 12 December 2022 and an appeal filed on 20 November 2025, with a delay of 1,076 days.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
The Tribunal declined to admit the delayed appeal and dismissed it as time-barred. This is a limitation outcome, not a determination allowing the underlying tax claim.
Judicial decision
Appeal dismissed as time-barred
Outcome — in favour of
Revenue / respondent - taxpayer’s appeal dismissed on limitation; underlying tax claim not decided.
AKHB review point
Keep evidence of communication, calculate the applicable filing period against current law, and document any condonation explanation promptly.
Verification scope: Indexed official order, paragraphs 7–8 and pronouncement; no subsequent appeal status verified.
ITAT · Kolkata–Patna e-Court · Order 2026-01-22
Chandra Bhushan Roy v. NFAC
ITA 497/PAT/2025 · AY 2015–16
Natural justice / remand
Facts of the case
The first appeal had been dismissed without discussion of the merits; the order also records non-compliance in assessment and appeal proceedings.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter for a further hearing opportunity. It expressly required the taxpayer to cooperate. It did not decide the substantive addition in the taxpayer’s favour.
Judicial decision
Partly allowed for statistical purposes
Outcome — in favour of
Taxpayer - further hearing opportunity by remand; substantive addition not finally decided in its favour.
AKHB review point
Prepare the complete evidence and submissions for the remand hearing. Treat an opportunity to be heard as a procedural remedy rather than a tax exemption.
Verification scope: Indexed official order, paragraph 5 and dated first page; no subsequent appeal status verified.
ITAT · Mumbai · Order 2026-01-05
Environment Sewa Foundation
ITA 6773/Mum/2025 · AY Not established in verified extract
Procedural disposition
Facts of the case
The verified concluding extract requires a speaking order in accordance with law after a reasonable hearing opportunity.
Discussion by the Hon’ble Tribunal
The recorded disposition is allowed for statistical purposes. The available verified extract does not establish final substantive registration or exemption entitlement.
Judicial decision
Allowed for statistical purposes
Outcome — in favour of
Procedural/statistical allowance only; the available verified extract does not establish a final substantive winner.
AKHB review point
Read the complete original order before drawing a section-specific conclusion. Follow-up proceedings and the ultimate relief must be checked separately.
Verification scope: Limited note: concluding official-order extract and pronouncement verified; detailed grounds not yet extracted.
