KAPILDEV DUBEY,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

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

1. For that, the learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, without providing sufficient effective reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The impugned Appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A), being made on gross violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable

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

1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18 conducting advocate, the second appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period, therefore, there was delay of 952 days. In support of the illness of his mother, the assessee has filed medical certificate and prescription alongwith statement of bank account. It is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned

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)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1. That the present Appeal is being preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057549516(1) dated 31/10/2023, in the matter of assessment year AY 2017-18, wherein the appeal of the Assessee

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench 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), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri 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.

253 of income Tax Act. one of the considerations for this decision : period of delay [perfect circle India Ltd' v. ACIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 262 (Bom) following cenzure industries Ltd' v. rro (Notice of Motion No.492 and 493 of 2015 dt.15.1.2016 (Bom). The fact about the delay period in the present case is more than 7 years and 9 months

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

1. That the First Appeal order passed by the Id. CIT(A) was received on 31.03.2023 and according to the statute the Second Appeal should have be filed within 60 days from the date of the order received that is on or before 30.05.2023, but the same is filed on 10.03.2025. Therefore, the delay made of about 649 days

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

BHAIRABI CLUB AOP,KURUMPADA,HADAPADA,KHORDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaab 3606 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Adv J.M.Pattnaik, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

section 154 of the Act. That it was in this backdrop that the appeal was delayed by 253 days, which was not intentional. This fact has not been found to be false. Consequently, we condone the delay of 253 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253

SAHOO DISTRIBUTEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO(TDS), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue in the appeal was against holding the assessee as an assessee in default for non-deduction 2 of tax u/s.194C of the Act on the payments made to Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare