DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI DILIP KUMAR GHASHYAMDAS TEBREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 250 and 234 days in filing the appeals by the revenue in the respective appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6. The first ground was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO representing the revaluation of closing stock. 7. It was submitted

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHO KUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS TIBAREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 250 and 234 days in filing the appeals by the revenue in the respective appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6. The first ground was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO representing the revaluation of closing stock. 7. It was submitted

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2014-15 & 2015- 16 dated 24.08.2024, which have been passed against the rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act, dated 19.12.2016. Since the issues are common, both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2014-15 & 2015- 16 dated 24.08.2024, which have been passed against the rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act, dated 19.12.2016. Since the issues are common, both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, SAMBALPUR

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2023-24 dated 30.01.2025, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.12.2024. I.T.A. No.: 195/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds

PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, , KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao There Was Absolutely No Response To Notices Fixing The Dates For Hearing After The Proceedings Had Been Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Add Rs. 12,00,000/- On Account Of Expenditure From Unknown Sources Incurred In The Marriage Ceremony Of The Assesses Daughter.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 07.01.2025 for AY 2011-12, against the order passed by the Ld. AO. It is seen that before the Ld. AO there was absolutely no response to notices

DREAM INDIA TRANSFORMATION,NABARANGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 253 of the Act; (b) Admit and hear the accompanying appeal on merits; and (c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present

M/S. NALCO MINES EMPLOYEES UNION,KORAPUT vs. PR.CIT-1, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off with the directions to the competent authority –ld

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Pramod Kumar Moharana, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar.Of Nalco Mines Employees‟ Union, At: D-9, Sector-1, Nalco Township, Damanjodi,Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No.Aclpm 0589 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Pr. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2017-18. Application Of Applicant/Assessee For Condonation Of Delay :- 2. Ld. Senior Counsel On Application Dated 28.03.2021 Submitted That The Hon‟Ble High Court Of Orissa Was Pleased To Direct To File Appeal Before The Tribunal For Adjudication & The Matter Was Disposed Of Vide W.P.(C) No.24445/2020, Dated 05.01.2021 & I.A.No.250/2021 Vide Dated 17.03.2021 For Consideration Of Explanation Of Assessee For The Delay In P A G E 1 | 20 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18

250 of 2021, delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “ A. For that the exparte order of the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar-1 vide dated 15.07.2020 illegally made from the Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2017-18 and passed without consideration of grant

URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I URMILA KISHAN, submits that the present appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal with a delay of 322 days beyond the prescribed limitation period from order under section 250

KAMYAB EXPORTS (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.538 & 539/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year 2009-10 Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.301, No.301, Royal Royal Height Height Bhubaneswar Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Vihar, , Bhubaneswar , Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No.Aacck 5144 N .Aacck 5144 N (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

250 of the Act. ITA No.539/CTK/2014 is an 539/CTK/2014 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under section

KAMYAB EXPORTS (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.538 & 539/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year 2009-10 Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.301, No.301, Royal Royal Height Height Bhubaneswar Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Vihar, , Bhubaneswar , Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No.Aacck 5144 N .Aacck 5144 N (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

250 of the Act. ITA No.539/CTK/2014 is an 539/CTK/2014 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under section

LADI SRINIVAS RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The first issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,56,000/- u/s.68 of the Act on account of alleged gift

M/S. NORTH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees stand partly allowed

250 days. Further there is a delay of 325 day in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-2014. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed stating sufficient reasons to condone the abovesaid delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay in the said cases. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well

WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees stand partly allowed

250 days. Further there is a delay of 325 day in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-2014. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed stating sufficient reasons to condone the abovesaid delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay in the said cases. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well

M/S. WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees stand partly allowed

250 days. Further there is a delay of 325 day in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-2014. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed stating sufficient reasons to condone the abovesaid delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay in the said cases. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ODISHA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees stand partly allowed

250 days. Further there is a delay of 325 day in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-2014. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed stating sufficient reasons to condone the abovesaid delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay in the said cases. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 09.08.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 27.02.2024. I.T.A. No.: 65/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hemant Kumar Majhi. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred

SURESH KUMAR SOMANI,MALKANGIRI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.55 /Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Kumar Somani…………………………………................……….……Appellant Motu Road, Korukonda B.O, Alur, Malkangiri (Odisha), Odissa - 764045.. [Pan: Acxps8005Q] Vs. Acit, Berhampur………....………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. B. Doshi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 228 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 228 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation