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

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

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 of all the assessees under

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

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

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 of all the assessees under

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

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 of all the assessees under

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar u/s 263 of the LT. Act, 1961 is excessive, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That

BEBASHISH PATTNAIK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

DEBASHISH PATTNAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BHUBNAESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

DEBASISH PATTNAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNASTIONALK TAXATION), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

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

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