ITAT Cuttack Judgments — December 2025

ABINASH NAIK,SAMBALPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 562/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. While the assessee argued for a 1% profit estimation, the revenue suggested a minimum of 2%. The AO had estimated the income at 8%. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 2%.

MRTC INDIA PVT LTD,PURI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 575/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for the assessee to represent their case, but the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

GIRIJA PRASAD PATI,ICHHAPUR,, SHRIBALDEVJEW, KENDRAPADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KENDRAPADA WARD, KENDRAPADA

ITA 544/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days. Considering the submissions and the evidence produced, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification and readjudication after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

BRAJA KISHORE JENA,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 546/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, adopted a justice-oriented approach. It held that refusing to condone delay could defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay was not deliberate. The assessee's explanation for the delay was found to be not false.

NUAGAON LARGE SIZED MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,SUNDARGARH vs ITO, WARD 3, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

ITA 87/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was cryptic and the assessee had not cooperated. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

MANAMOHAN SAHOO,PURI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, PURI, PURI

ITA 622/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.

NANDINI GOEL,SAMBALPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 621/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the notice indeed provided less than the mandatory seven clear days for the assessee to respond. Following precedents from the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and coordinate benches of the ITAT, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was violative of the statutory requirement.

SUBHAJYOTI RAY,GHAZIABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 612/CTK/2025[2016-2017]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017N/A

The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's inability to produce evidence before the lower authorities, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to substantiate the claim. The issues were restored to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives adequate opportunity of being heard.

SURYAKANTA JENA,GADA PARJANG vs ITO DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

ITA 579/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 265 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's affidavit and noting no serious objection from the revenue. Given the circumstances, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO , WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 616/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that employees had filed returns showing salary income. It also considered that the sundry creditor accounts were for religious trusts. In the interest of justice, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

BRAHMANI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,ROURKELA vs ACIT,CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

ITA 330/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the bad debt claimed by the assessee was allowable, following the Supreme Court decision in TRF vs CIT, as it was written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's books. For the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for physical verification of bills and vouchers, granting the assessee an opportunity to produce them.

STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ORISSA LIMITED, CUTTACK,CUTTACK vs ITO WARD-1(1) CUTTACK, CUTTACK

ITA 543/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The assessee approached the PCCIT for condoning the delay in filing the return, and the PCCIT condoned the delay. The return was filed on 4.12.2025. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

THEBAITARANI MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

ITA 356/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as received by the assessee from the income tax portal, was unsigned. Despite the Revenue presenting a physically signed copy of the same notice, the Tribunal found the discrepancy to be unexplained. The Tribunal held that a notice served to the assessee in an unsigned format is invalid, and consequently, any assessment based on it would also be quashed.

SUSI CHARITABLE TRUST,KHURDA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27Partly Allowed

The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court case law to establish that timelines under Section 80G(5) are directory. It held that the Id.CIT(E) has the power to condone the delay in filing the application for recognition under Section 80G.

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable as it was granted mechanically without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 570/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 571/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 534/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee but there was no compliance. However, to provide an opportunity for proper adjudication, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO,ANGUL vs ITO , WARD-1, ROURKELA

ITA 598/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that an appeal cannot be filed against a demand letter. However, in the interest of justice, the AO was directed to issue a duplicate copy of the intimation under section 143(1) to the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 518/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, the State Pollution Control Board, qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, based on its complete financial and administrative control by the State Government and adherence to tests laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted.

SMART LIFESTYLE MULTI TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 384/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the ground related to advertisement charges. Regarding the TDS disallowance on rent, the tribunal restricted the disallowance to 30% as per the amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the relevant assessment year. Furthermore, disallowances made on adhoc basis for other expenses like fuel, maintenance, telephone, etc., were deleted as they were not permissible.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 520/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, the State Pollution Control Board, qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, based on its complete financial and administrative control by the State Government and adherence to tests laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted.

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, W1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 538/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed/Allowed

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal for AY 2014-15 to the AO for fresh verification of deposits and related documentation, and also restored the penalty appeal for the same year. For AY 2016-17, the assessment order and CIT(A) order were set aside, and the assessment was directed to be done de novo by the jurisdictional AO.

PASRINITA MOHAPATRA,CUTTACK vs DY.CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

ITA 610/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. These decisions held that if a notice u/s.143(2) is not in line with CBDT instructions, it is liable to be quashed.

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable as it was granted mechanically without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

M/S. SERAJUDDIN & CO. PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBAENSWAR, BHUBANESWAWR

ITA 530/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities for representation, but the assessee failed to comply. However, to ensure justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 521/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, the State Pollution Control Board, qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, based on its complete financial and administrative control by the State Government and adherence to tests laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted.

M/S. SERAJUDDIN & CO. PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 531/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities for representation, but the assessee failed to comply. However, to ensure justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

RANJAN KUMAR SAHU,ANGUL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD, ANGUL

ITA 487/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a response on the last date provided for it. The tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

RAJASHREE KHUNTIA,CUTTACK vs ITO WARD(1), CUTTACK

ITA 512/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal noted that even if the entire disclosed turnover was considered as deposited, there was a difference of Rs. 31,67,715/-. However, considering the loans received by the assessee and the disclosed turnover, the entire amount deposited in the bank account was explained.

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 541/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed/Allowed

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal for AY 2014-15 to the AO for fresh verification of deposits and related documentation, and also restored the penalty appeal for the same year. For AY 2016-17, the assessment order and CIT(A) order were set aside, and the assessment was directed to be done de novo by the jurisdictional AO.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 517/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the assessee, State Pollution Control Board, is to be treated as a 'State'. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) followed the judicial discipline by adhering to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 270A was deleted by the CIT(A) on the basis that the assessee is a 'State'. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. As the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, the cross objections filed by the assessee, which were only in support of the CIT(A)'s orders, were rendered infructuous and dismissed.

M/S. F. SERAJUDDIN EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 537/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but there was no compliance. However, to provide justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to be paid to the ITAT Bar Association.

M/S. F. SERAJUDDIN EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 532/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but there was no compliance. However, to provide justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to be paid to the ITAT Bar Association.

SRI SANJIT KUMAR GIRI,MAYURBHANJ vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA

ITA 601/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and observed that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to non-representation by the assessee. Since the assessee requested another opportunity to present the case with documentary evidence, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 574/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

HEMRAJ DEVKARANDAS METALS & MINERAL LTD,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -1,, SAMBALPUR

ITA 282/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to the show cause notice from the PCIT. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the PCIT for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim.

SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO,ANGUL vs ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

ITA 606/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The application was made because the current appeal was a duplicate filing of a previous appeal, ITA No.598/CTK/2025. The tribunal considered the application for withdrawal.

F. SERAJUDDIN EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 536/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but there was no compliance. However, to provide justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to be paid to the ITAT Bar Association.

M/S. SERAJUDDIN & CO PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 529/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities for representation, but the assessee failed to comply. However, to ensure justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 535/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee but there was no compliance. However, to provide an opportunity for proper adjudication, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association.

SHRI PARAMESWAR MOHANTA,MAYURBHANJ vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA

ITA 436/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the submissions, condoned the delay of 174 days in filing the appeal, and restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

GUNJAN ENTERPRISES,JUNAGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANIPATNA

ITA 440/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed that a mistake had occurred in entering the purchase and sales transactions in the partner's current account. To do justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO).

JEMAMANI MOHANTA,MAYURBHANJ vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

ITA 486/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC on 28.03.2022 was prior to the effective date of the notification (29.03.2022) and thus was passed without jurisdiction. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its coordinate benches in similar cases.

ANGUL DISTRICT TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION,ANGUL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

ITA 480/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid because it did not provide the assessee with the required minimum of seven clear days to respond. This decision was based on established jurisprudence from various High Courts and the Supreme Court regarding the calculation of statutory notice periods.

HIMANSU SEKHAR DAS,BHUBAN, DHENKANAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

ITA 476/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 569/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 572/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 567/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for representation and submission of documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Despite this, the CIT(A) had discussed the issues on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION,JHARSUGUDA vs THE ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 568/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2018-19N/A

The ITAT condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons plausible and unopposed. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the issues in these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal to the ITAT Bar Association and cooperates fully with the fresh proceedings.