KAPILDEV DUBEY,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

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

cash deposited u/s.69A of the Act, as such, the consequential addition being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6. For that, the Impugned estimation of net profit @7.57% from cloth business and 2.0% from petrol pump business separately made by the learned A.O., on the basis of previous year return

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

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

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

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

SHRI GIRISH CHANDRA SETHI,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARIPADA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condoned the delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.11.2014 in ITR-4 disclosing total income of Rs.3,16,000/-. In the return of income assessee has stated nature of business

SUNIL K EPARI,AMERICA vs. ACIT INTL TAX, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.101/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sunil K Epari, Vs Acit, International Taxation, 123, Putnam Way Silver Spring Bhubaneswar Mechanicsburg, Foreign, United States Of America Pan No. :Abxpe 7883 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra & Shri Prashant Mishra, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22, Dated 28.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 11 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are In Dispute. The First Addition Is In Respect Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.15,99,000/- & The Second

condone the delay of 11 days delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that two additions are in dispute. The first addition is in respect of cash deposit

HEMANT KUMAR MAJHI,KONGARA vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & 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: “1. That the order of the learned CIT(Appeal) is unjust and not in reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the appellant is not maintaining the books of account. 3. That

SAROJ PRUSTY,TALASAHI, KHURDA vs. ITO,KHURDA, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.131/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Saroj Prusty Vs Ito,Khurda Talasahi, Khurda 752055 Pan No. : Bcnpp 3943 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manas Ranjan Nayak, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

delay of 295 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was the submission that the assessee is a dealer in FMCG items. It was the submission that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee’s books of accounts were rejected and as against

BISWAJIT NAYAK,ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

condone the delay of 414 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is disposed of on merits. 2 3. Before us, the assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, which are related to the confirmation of the imposition of penalty of Rs.14,21,784/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since all the ground pertain