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

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

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

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

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

condone delay: "The expression 'sufficient cause or reason' as provided in sub-s. (5) of s. 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the IT Act such as Secs. 274

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

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. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

condonation of delay) is enclosed at page nos. 02 to,03 of the paper book. However no Order U/S 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the competent income tax authority either refusing or allowing registration to the appellant as a trust even though several years had passed after receipt of the application for registration

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

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