M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM 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

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

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

BIJAY BRATA KUNDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

Delay of 136 days is condoned keeping in view bonafide cause stated in the application. 2. The only grievance in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.3,26,124/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing

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

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

RAJESH 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

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

ASHA DIDWANIA,BHADRAK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 372 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the Id.AR that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y.2013-2014. It was the submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

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

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

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

SMT. POONAM PUJARI,ROURKELA vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanbefore Member & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15

condone the delay of 36 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. P a g e 3 | 9 Assessment Year : 2014-15 5. As it is noticed that as the issue pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in regard to Miscellaneous application against the dismissal of the Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee before the Tribunal

ORISSA CHROME EXPORT & MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Orissa Orissa Chrome Chrome Export Export & & Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 65/1, 65/1, Nayapali, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4389 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Shivanand Shivanandan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /02/2023 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) -1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated17.9.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0344/16-17 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For Th Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S E Assessee & Shri Suresh Shivanandan, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. , Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Suresh Shivanand Shivanandan, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22/0 02/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22/0 /02/2023 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