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

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

2. For that, learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in confirming the addition of deposit of old SBNs of Rs.14,76,500.00, made by the learned A.O., treating it as unexplained money by applying provisions of section 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that, the Assessee has been running petrol pump

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:

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable

M/S ZERINA MARINE (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.115/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1998-1999) M/S Zerina Marines (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar At-67, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaacz 2200 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

2 Tribunal when the same have not been produced before the lower authorities. This being so, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected. Heard on the question of condonation of delay 4. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is allegedly belated by 5820 days. The facts that giving rise to the appeal have a chequered

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

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

section 253(3) of the Act, an appeal is required to be filed by the assessee or the Department within sixty days from the date of communication of the order to be appealed against on the assessee or the CIT, as the case may be and under s. 253(5), Tribunal may admit an appeal P a g e 2

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

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

2. That, the Appellant due to frequent cardiac problems and regular treatments from the year 2022 to 2024 he was in disturbed/distress mind and not in a position to consult an advocate for taking further course of action to file the Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, in the process about 649 days of delay caused in filing

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 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. 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 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. 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. 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

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee