SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD,, BHUANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature

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

justice would be denied by not condoning the delay. The maximum that could happen is that the appeal would be heard on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 has also supported the said view. It is also P a g e 7 | 15 Assessment Year

BASUDEV SWAIN,ROURKELA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.662 & 697/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Basudev Swain, Hig- B 110, Vs Acit, Rourkela Phase-Iii, Kalinga Vihar, Chhend Colony, Rourkela-769015 Pan No. : Aygps 2479 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

nature. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals on technical grounds and arguments advanced by the ld.AR for the assessee and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal without discussing the issues on merits because the assessee has explained

BASUDEV SWAIN,ROURKELA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.662 & 697/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Basudev Swain, Hig- B 110, Vs Acit, Rourkela Phase-Iii, Kalinga Vihar, Chhend Colony, Rourkela-769015 Pan No. : Aygps 2479 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Ray Mohapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

nature. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals on technical grounds and arguments advanced by the ld.AR for the assessee and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal without discussing the issues on merits because the assessee has explained

WOMEN ORGANISATION FOR SOCIO CULTURAL AWARNESS,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice if the delay in filing this appeal is not condoned. Hence, this humble petition before the Hon'ble Tribunal

SANDHYA MALLICK ,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Axwpm 2241 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate K.K.Bal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 24.9.2018 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Wherein, It Is Stated As Under: , Wherein, It Is Stated As Under:

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for adjudication. 10. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that the order was passed exparte without considering the submissions of the assessee. Hence, the assessee was not provided proper opportunity to putforth her case. Therefore, there is merit

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

condone the delay of 198 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The sole grievance raised in the grounds of appeal is that the CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad has passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act, in a hurriedly manner without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

justice, we condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

justice, we condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

justice, we condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

justice, we condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

justice, we condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case

TAPAN KUMAR SETHY,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

justice and even after sufficient cause has been shown the party is not entitled to condonation of delay, as a matter of right. If sufficient cause is shown then Tribunal has to enquire, whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay, consideration of bona fides or due diligence is always material. Since all other circumstances are also

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

natural justice that is "audi alteram partem" by issuing show cause notice dated 12/03/2019 and hence the impugned order is bad in law and invalid. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT( Ld. Pr.CIT) has passed the order under section 263 without application of mind which is evident from the fact

SUMANTA KUMAR DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.36/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sumanta Kumar Das, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), Plot No.-Lb-118, Stage-Iv, Bhubaneswar Budheswari, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adypd 8979 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 27.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of Three Years Three Months & Five Days In Filing The Appeal Of Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Prolonged Illness & Negligence Of The Previous Counsel, He Could Not File The Appeal In Time. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. We Have Also Gone Through The Said Application Along With The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Explaining

justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. 4. Considering the application along with the affidavit of the assessee

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

justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If explanation does not smack of mala fide or I.T.A. No.: 178/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Narendra Kumar Bal. does

PATEL-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact