SIBASANKAR SAHU,- DEOGARH vs. PCIT, , SAMBALPUR.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 3. On merits, it was the submission that the ld. AR that the original assessment order in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.144 of the Act on 30.12.2019, wherein the AO had estimated the income of the assessee

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

depositions made in the C.A. affidavit remain uncorroborated and there is no affidavit from the said Shri Malik Parvej in support of the affidavit of C.A.. Thus, the vague affidavit given by the C.A. remained uncorroborated and unreliable. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it declined to condone the delay of 347 days in filing

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the revised corrected grounds of appeal, which read as under; “1. For that, impugned order passed U/s.263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as the conditions for initiation of 263 proceedings are not fulfilled, as such, the impugned

ANIL KUMAR JENA,KENDRAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KENDRAPARA WARD, KENDRAPARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Kumar Jena Jena Vs. Ito, Ward, Kendrapara Ito, Ward, Kendrapara Kalapada, Sri Baladevjew Kalapada, Sri Baladevjew Kendrapara 754212 Kendrapara 754212 Pan/Gir No.Awgpj7420B Awgpj7420B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/202 /2025 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual derives income from business and profession. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 25.8.2017 admitting total income of Rs.6,06,400/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify

DEBASHREE PRIYADARSHINI SETHY,KANSAR, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO WARD, KENDRAPARA, KENDRAPARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.132/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Debashree Priadarshini Sethy, Vs Ito, Ward Kendrapara, C/O-Prahlad Sethy Kansar, Kendrapara Via-Baldadevjew, Kendrapara-754212 Pan No. :Fsdps 3497 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.01.2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059784550(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off Finally On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny For The Sole Reason To Verify The Cash Deposit During

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard and disposed off finally on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny for the sole reason to verify the cash deposit

DIBAKAR SWAIN,CHHOTI NIKIRAI, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO, WARD KENDRAPADA, KENDRAPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Dibakar Dibakar Swain, Swain, Vs. Ito, Ward, Chakargunathpur, Chakargunathpur, Chhoti Chhoti Kendrapara. Nikirai, Kendrapara Nikirai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Bbnxps 2582 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Delhi Dated Dated Dated 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 In In In Appeal Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019 No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019-20 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee as un-explained cash credit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. For that estimation of net profit @ 6% on the turnover of Rs.5,16,06,634/- and consequential addition of Rs.38,96,392/- (Rs.30,96,398/- determined by ld AO) as sustained

BICHITRA NANDA MALLICK,NISCHINTAKOILI vs. PR.CIT-1, , BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the order of the Pr

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Bichitra Nanda Mallick, Bichitra Nanda Mallick, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, At: At: Praharajpur, Praharajpur, Gotara, Gotara, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Mahanga, Mahanga, Nischintakoili, Nischintakoili, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Apqpm 9746 L (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 66 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was the submission of ld AR that the assessment in the case of the assessee came to be passed u/s.144 of the Act on 6.12.2019, wherein, on account of non-filing of the return by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had treated the deposits

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

BALADEB MOHAPATRA,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.344/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Shri Baladeb Mohapatra, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Paradeep Pahana, Pankapal, Jagatsinghpur Pan No. : Akhpm 1731 F (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka,Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 20.06.2016 For The A.Y.2011-2012. 2. This Appeal Was Already Disposed Off By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.08.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court, Which Was Registered As Income Tax Appeal No.51/2017 & The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 06.02.2019 Has Directed The Tribunal To Decide The Review Petition To Be Filed By The Assessee As Expeditiously As Possible, Preferably Within A Period Of Four Months From The Date Of Filing Of Such Review Petition. Accordingly, The Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Before The Tribunal & The Tribunal Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee & 2 With A Compliance To The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court, Stated Supra

cash deposits except in certain cases. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the action of both the authorities below. Accordingly, ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and considering the orders of both the authorities below as well as the order of the Tribunal dated

NILIMA NAYAK,KENDRAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KENDRAPARA WARD, KENDRAPARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that order u/s 250 of the I.T Act Dated- 20.01.2024 as passed by the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC is illegal and arbitrary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KARANI DAN CHANDAK,JAJPUR ROAD vs. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18 Karani Dan Chandak, Prop. M/S. Vs. Addl.Joint/Dy.Asst.Commssioner Chandan Zarda Store, Jajpur Of Income Tax, Nfac, Delhi Road, Jajpur Pan/Gir No.Aeppc 8155 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,02,93,425/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act being unexplained cash deposit

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A. For that, the order of the forums below are illegal absurd, improper and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the orders passed are liable to be deleted. B. For that

SRI CHITTARANJAN JENA,PIPIL vs. ITO WARD, PURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Chitaranjan Ranjan Jena, Jena, Vs. Ito, Ward, Puri. Ito, Ward, Puri. Pubasasan, K Pubasasan, Kausal Ganga, Pipili, Bhubaneswar. Pipili, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ajpkj 5787 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 8 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In this appeal, two issues have been raised. The first issue is in regard to addition of Rs.7,47,500/- representing SBN notes (specified bank notes) deposited by the assessee between 10.11.2016 and 29.12.2016. The second issue is in regard to addition of Rs.70,310/- representing interest

BARUAN SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUR, JAJPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay of 1 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring to file the return of income

MANORANJAN LENKA,BALANGA vs. PCIT-1, BHUBANEWSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.34/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Manoranjan Lenka, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar At/Po: Balanga, Dist : Puri, Odisha-752105 Pan No. :Addpl 7206 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/ 2021-22/1038323205(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 27 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Therein. Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above & Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 13.08.2019 & It Was A Case Of Limited Scrutiny In Respect Of Large Cash Deposits In The Bank

delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 13.08.2019 and it was a case of limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposits

MR. MADAN LAL GUPTA,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.379/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Madan Lal Gupta Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak Near Charampa College, Tishalpur, Rahanja, Charampa, Bhadrak, 756101 Pan No. : Acxpg 7862 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R. Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 18/10/2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10541/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 181 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 181 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

delay of 181 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR, that there are two additions. It was the submission that the assesee is a wholesale dealer of Britannia Biscuits. It was the submission that in the course

SHRI MANGILAL MAHANTA,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

delay of 77 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of poultry and running commercial goods vehicles (pick-up vans etc.) it was the submission that in the course of assessment

BIJAY KUMAR SWAIN,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rajpal Yadavrajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandar.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Bijay Kumar Swain, Bijay Kumar Swain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Income Tax Officer, Nfac, M/S. M/S. Jholei Swain Jholei Swain & & Sons, Sons, Delhi Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Fruit Market, Cuttack Fruit Market, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalatendu Sahu, Ca Lalatendu Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Pandaper R.K.Pandathis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.12.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Nfac/2012- 13/10150448 Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 14. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By Petition Supported By An Affidavit, Inter Alia, Stating That Due , Inter Alia, Stating That Due To His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The Doctor To Take One Month Rest. Therefore, There Was Doctor To Take One Month Rest. Therefore, There Was A Delay Of 17 Days In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised, however, all these relate to the exparte order of ld CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.60,54,007/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the I.T.Act