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

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

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. PR.CIT-1, , BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual and a partner in Joshi Enterprises. It was the submission that the partnership firm is running a petrol pump. It was submitted that the 2 assessee had deposited total

JHADESWAR MANDAL,BHADRAK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.753/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Jhadeswar Mandal Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak C/O:- Mandal, Fruits, At/P.O/P.S:- Kachery Bazar, Dist:- Bhadrak, 756100, Odisha Pan No. : Bgupm 0558 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Himansu Jena, Advs राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date : 18/02/2026 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

condone the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a trader of fruits. It was the submission that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had accepted the turnover of the assessee at Rs.6

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

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

SARITA AGRAWAL,RAIRANGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.213/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sarita Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-1, Baripada Ward No:06, Rairangpur, Baripada, Mayurbhanj, 757043 Pan No. : Abvpa 9972 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate 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 148 days in filing the appeal 2 by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a dealer of Pan Masala, Zarda and Gutkha. It was the submission that the assessee, had during the demonetization

MANORANJAN SAHU,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

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

condone the delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, derives income from wholesale trading of eggs and filed its return of income on 09.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,87,060/-, which

HADIBANDHU PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Hadibandhu Pradhan Hadibandhu Pradhan, S/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Angul Ward, Angul Angul Ward, Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul- 759103 Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adwpp 5210 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/0 /04/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.9.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10141/2019 2/10141/2019-19 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 .

delay of 65 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 6. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had withdrawn Rs.10 lakhs in cash on 24.5.2016 and 18.6.2016 and Rs.5 lakhs had been P a g e 2 | 6 Assessment Year : 2017-18 transferred to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo

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

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

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.

condone the delay of 423 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Ground No.1 of appeal is general in nature. 6. Ground No.2 relates to addition of Rs.44,92,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act. Ground No.3 relates to estimation of income by applying 6% profit rate on declared turnover resulting into the addition of Rs.30

MR. TRILOCHAN NAYAK,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr Mr Trilochan Trilochan Nayak Nayak, At: Vs. Ito, Ward, Ito, Ward, Niladrivihar, Niladrivihar, Bhadrak Bhadrak By By- Bhadrak Pass Road, Dsit: Bhadrak Pass Road, Dsit: Bhadrak Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Abzpn 0747 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bivash Ranjan Panda, Adv Bivash Ranjan Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 O R D E R 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), Nfac, Delhi, , Nfac, Delhi, Dated 1.7.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043705466(1) 23/1043705466(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Bivash Ranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Bivash Ranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Bivash Ranjan Panda, 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.

demonetization period of Rs.2,04,000/-. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) may be deleted and income of the assessee be estimated @ 4% of the total turnover. It was the further submission that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 336 days, for which, the assessee

KAMALA KANTA BASA,BARIPADA vs. ITO, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Kamala Kanta Basa Kamala Kanta Basa, Ward Vs. Ito, Baripada Ito, Baripada No.09, No.09, Deula Deula Sahi, Sahi, Baripada, Mayurbhanj Baripada, Mayurbhanj Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Afnpb 9021 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Adv Sahoo, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/0 08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/0 /08/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 30.9.2023 30.9.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10673/2019 Cuttack/10673/2019-20 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Chitta Ranjan Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Ld Ar Appeared For Appeared For The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

condone the delay of 248 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that despite given several opportunities to present his case, the assessee has not provided any reply and written submission in response to the notices. Even a perusal of the assessment order also shows

SARBESWAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Sarbeswar Sarbeswar Routray, Routray, Plot Plot Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- No.745, No.745, Jharpada, Jharpada, 3(5), Bhubaneswar. 3(5), Bhubaneswar. Po:Laxmisagar Agar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiwpr 0796 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /09/2023 O R D E R

delay of 143 days in filing the appeal is condoned and same is disposed of on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee, a retired government employee was working in the Soil Conservation Department of Govt. of Odisha and receiving an income about Rs.6.8 lakhs per annum. It was the submission that during the relevant assessment