SUNIL AGARWAL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of all the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.259/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Subash Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3716 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.260/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3718 Q & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.261/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Rajesh Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acepa 5209 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.262/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Anil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3717 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal,Cas िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

condone the delay in filing the all the appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, ld. Assessee Representative (AR) placing reliance on the decision

ANIL AGARWAL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of all the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.259/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Subash Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3716 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.260/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3718 Q & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.261/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Rajesh Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acepa 5209 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.262/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Anil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3717 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal,Cas िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

condone the delay in filing the all the appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, ld. Assessee Representative (AR) placing reliance on the decision

SUBASH AGARWAL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of all the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.259/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Subash Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3716 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.260/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3718 Q & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.261/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Rajesh Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acepa 5209 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.262/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Anil Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Plot No.N-1/93 Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aatpa 3717 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal,Cas िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

condone the delay in filing the all the appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. The sole issue involved in all these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, ld. Assessee Representative (AR) placing reliance on the decision

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

M/S. NORTH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,BALASORE vs. DCIT (TDS-II), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

delay, we condone along with other connected appeals. 3. Since the issue and facts involved in these appeals are interconnected and common, they are being heard and disposed off through consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.280/CTK/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein the assessee

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

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

248/- had offered Rs.5,60,902/- as long term capital gain. The AO by observing that the stamp value authority has valued the said property at Rs.1,15,51,737/- and, thus, show caused as to why the sale consideration should not be substituted to Rs.1,15,51,737/- as against Rs.17,64,150/- declared by the 3 assessee

NIROD KUMAR SAHOO,MEENABAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,DHENKANAL WARD,DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bazar, Dhenkanal Bazar, Dhenkanal-759001 Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahups 4395 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Natabar Panda, 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

delay of 152 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed of on merits. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal is against the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that there was survey on the premises of the assessee and consequently, assessment came

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

Delay condoned. We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above Rs.1 crore, that is, Rs.6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SRI BAJRANG KUMAR AGRAWAL, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

248 (SC) is not binding in view of the decision of Shanmugavel Nadar (263 ITR 658) (SC), as the same is merely a dismissal, where it was held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. (vi) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have followed the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees