PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 763/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 March 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their responsibility by providing names and addresses of persons who advanced money and confirmed the transactions. The onus then shifted to the revenue, which failed to discharge it. For the boundary wall advance, income was assessed at 8% of the amount. For cash withdrawal and redeposit, no addition was sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order regarding assessment year 2011-12 and consequential penalty proceedings. The primary issue involved advances received for agricultural land. The assessee claimed these were from five persons, who had confirmed the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding advances for agricultural land and construction of boundary wall, as confirmed by the CIT(A), are justified. Also, whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

PER BENCH: ITA No.763/CTK/2025 filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2010-11/10116039 dated 16.12.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 and ITA No.764/CTK/2025 filed by the assessee relates to consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

ITA No.763&764/CTK/2025

2.

Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

ITA No.763/CTK/2025 – It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issu

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →