ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2025

PRASHANTA KISHORE DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 255/CTK/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the CBDT Notification No.2/2024 regarding the time limit for verification of income tax returns. It was clarified that if e-verification/ITR-V is submitted within 30 days of uploading, the date of uploading is considered the date of furnishing.

TANUJA CHHATOI,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 223/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank account deposits were largely related to her spouse's petrol pump business and had been offered to income tax. The lower authorities had not properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant documents.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,SECOND FLOOR vs SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA, SUNDARGARH

ITA 388/CTK/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Aug 2025AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were made based on audited balance sheets and ledger copies, not on any incriminating material seized during the search. The CIT(A) had correctly quashed the assessment order for lack of jurisdiction under Section 153A in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SECOND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AINTHAPALI vs SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA

ITA 392/CTK/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were made based on audited balance sheets and ledger copies, not on any incriminating material seized during the search. The CIT(A) had correctly quashed the assessment order for lack of jurisdiction under Section 153A in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material.

AVINANDITA MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , BHUABENSWAR

ITA 366/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present clear grounds of appeal regarding the correct figures for unexplained investment, showing confusion and a disparity in the amounts presented at different stages. Due to these defective grounds, the Tribunal could not proceed with a proper adjudication.

DHRUPAD MUSIC FOUNDATION,KARANJASUL vs COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 318/CTK/2025[2024-2025]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had provided several opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 328/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2025AY 2026-27Withdrawn

The Bench granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the assessee. Since the D.R. had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 506/CTK/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2025AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the DRP's decision did not consider the amendment in the definition of 'market value' and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in DCM Shriram Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the AO's order and directed the DRP to reconsider its decision in light of these factors.

RAJENDER PRASAD GOEL,BHUBANESWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 12/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17N/A

The Tribunal held that Section 269SS applies to loans and advances, not to cash received as sale consideration at the time of registering the sale deed. The correct provisions for cash transactions in immovable property exceeding Rs.2 lakhs are Section 269ST, attracting penalty under Section 271DA. Since the penalty was incorrectly levied under Section 271D, it was deleted, following a similar ruling by a coordinate bench.

AYIMAT KHAN,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARAK WARD, BHADRAK

ITA 232/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18N/A

The tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and evidence before the AO. The issues are remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to pay will result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.

JYOTI RANJAN BISWAL,ANGUL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

ITA 313/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not substantiated their claim with documents. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.

GUDARI LARGE SIZED MULTIPURPOSE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,GUDARI vs ITO WARD RAYGADA, RAYGADA

ITA 414/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The assessee's representative did not appear in the uniform prescribed in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for virtual mode appearances. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

SK KALIMUDDIN,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER BHADRAK WARD,BHADRAK, BHADRAK

ITA 322/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee could not substantiate their claim with relevant documents. However, to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication.

SRI SRI JADIMAHAL YOUTH CLUB,TALAKIA vs COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 410/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. It was held that when an authority has the power to grant registration, it also has the power to condone delay, which is in line with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

SOCIETY FOR WELFARE ANIMATION AND DEVELOPMENT,RAYADAGA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BERHAMPUR

ITA 416/CTK/2025[AY 2026-27]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application was rejected for non-representation. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication with an opportunity to the assessee.

SURESH CHANDRA BEHERA,BALASORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 94/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the contention of the assessee was not acceptable due to the lack of documentary evidence.

PROJECT SWARAJYA,CUTTACK vs COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 411/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that when an authority has the power to grant registration, it also has the power to condone delay. It is a principle of natural justice to grant an opportunity of being heard before rejecting an application on grounds of delay. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay and file the correct form.

M/S. BINAPANI IRON STORE,BERHAMPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

ITA 339/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated its claim before the lower authorities due to a lack of opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.

AYIMAT KHAN,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK

ITA 231/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was granted subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each.

KALI PRASANNA PARIDA,PARADEEP vs ITO, WARD, PARADEEP, PARADEEP

ITA 395/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 404 days, admitting the appeal for hearing. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer (AO) by restoring the issues to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh.

B C SAHU ASSOCIATES,BERHAMPUR vs ITO WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

ITA 408/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BHARATIYA SIKSHYA BIKASHA SANSTHANA,SIDDHARTHA NAGAR vs ITO, AMBAPUA

ITA 406/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure claimed as application in an intimation under section 143(1) is not permissible. If the benefit of sections 11 & 13 is to be denied, the income should be recomputed under the head business income.

FIREWATTER DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOMATLAPETA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE

ITA 399/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to lack of documents, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.

ODISO SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD,JAJPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR ROAD

ITA 407/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case before the AO.

BHARATIYA SIKSHYA BIKASHA SANSTHANA,SIDDHARTHA NAGAR vs ITO, AMBAPUA

ITA 405/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure claimed as application in an intimation under section 143(1) is not permissible. If the benefit of sections 11 & 13 is to be denied, the income should be recomputed under the head business income.

S B CONSTRUCTION,ANGUL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 396/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The appeal was admitted for hearing after condoning the delay of 132 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity. The tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claim, subject to payment of costs.

SANKAR CHARAN MARANDI,MAYURBHANJ vs ACIT, BALESHWAR

ITA 409/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days, admitted the appeal, and granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO. This opportunity is subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days. If the cost is not paid, the order of the CIT(A) will stand confirmed.

MILAN KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

ITA 397/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160 days and admitted the appeal. Since the assessee could not substantiate its claim with documents before lower authorities, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) by restoring the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BANER SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,KALAHANDI vs ITO, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

ITA 403/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A).

SAGAR MINING AND METALS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KEONJHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

ITA 398/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days. The tribunal observed that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO.

LATA RAY,BALESWAR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),CUTTACK, CUTTACK

ITA 401/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not substantiated its claim with documents before the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice and the request for an opportunity, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more chance to present its case before the CIT(A).

PRAVAT KUMAR PATHAL,JAJPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,JAJPUR, JAJPUR

ITA 386/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 35 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO, restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

JATIN PADHI,JEYPORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JEYPORE WARD,, JEYPORE

ITA 370/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer (AO) to substantiate its claim. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

SHANGA TRUST,PURI vs CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 391/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied after the due date but before the expiry of provisional registration. It was held that the power to condone delay is available with the authority, and principles of natural justice require granting an opportunity to be heard before rejecting an application on grounds of delay.

NARAMSETTI PRASAD RAO,BANDHUGAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA WARD

ITA 389/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee appeared through virtual mode but was not in the prescribed uniform. Based on this procedural lapse, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 372/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO. The issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,SAMBALPUR vs ACIT, SAMBALPUR

ITA 380/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the CIT(A). Hence, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.

JAYANTY MOHAPATRA,JAJPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,JAJPUR, JAJPUR

ITA 387/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. Considering the rival submissions and the fact that the assessee could not substantiate its claim, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO.

SOURA BAPTIST CHRISTIAN MANDALI SAMMILANI,GAJAPATI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 390/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that while the application was filed late, the authority granting registration also has the power to condone delays. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, it is important to provide an opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay before rejecting the application.

MALECKUNNEL PHILIP VARGHESE,SAMBALPUR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 256/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City held that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E. Following this precedent and decisions of various High Courts, the Tribunal found that no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO in this case.

GUDLA BHASKAR RAO,JEYPORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

ITA 371/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

MALECKUNNEL PHILIP VARGHESE,SAMBALPUR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 258/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City held that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E. Following this precedent and decisions of various High Courts, the Tribunal found that no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO in this case.

CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs ITO(TDS), CUTTACK

ITA 392/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting both appeals for hearing. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs ITO(TDS), CUTTACK

ITA 393/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting both appeals for hearing. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

BURHANI EXPLOSIVE,SAMBALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(1),, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AINTHAPALI, SAMBALPUR

ITA 355/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the AO doubted the source of capital introduced by the partners, the addition should have been made in the hands of the partners, not in the hands of the assessee firm. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

KALAVIKAS KENDRA,CUTTACK vs ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

ITA 265/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act was not permissible as it taxed entire receipts as total income without assessing business income and without considering the necessary adjustments prescribed under the Act.

SHYAMA SUNDAR SAMANTA,DHENKANAL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

ITA 394/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

BIJAY KUMAR PANDA,BALASORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 388/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to a payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost.

PRADEEP KUMAR DAS,BALASORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, BALASORE

ITA 300/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the differential amount of Rs. 1,81,42,395/- represented expenses for tanker and lorries, as shown in the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The reconciliation details were available with the Assessing Officer and showed payments through various modes, including bank and fleet card, and also shortages. The Tribunal found no error to warrant an estimated addition for suppressed turnover.

KALAVIKAS KENDRA,CUTTACK vs ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

ITA 266/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act was not permissible as it taxed entire receipts as total income without assessing business income and without considering the necessary adjustments prescribed under the Act.