RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

1. There is a delay of 315 days in filing of present appeal. The revision order u/s.263 was received by the appellant on 05.04.2019 and as such the appeal was required to be filed on 04.06.2019. The appeal was filed on 20th April, 2021 resulting in a delay of 315 days. In the application for condonation of delay

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

section 254(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 categorically provides that “the Tribunal is to give both the parties to appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass P a g e 6 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 such orders thereon as it thinks fit”. Admittedly, the Tribunal does have the power to condone the delay. The Tribunal being

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

condonation of delay for not filing of its return of income within the statutory time limit, before the CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, which has expressed provision for admission of claim of any exemption after the expiry of the period specified in the Income Tax Act. 2.4.2 In view of the above, it is humbly submitted

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and was engaged in retail trading of cloth and petrol pump. The return of income for the Assessment year 2017-18 was e-filed on 15.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,53,890/-. Subsequently

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the revised corrected grounds of appeal, which read as under; “1. For that, impugned order passed U/s.263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as the conditions for initiation of 263 proceedings are not fulfilled, as such, the impugned

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

condonation of delay and separately furnished to be allowed in toto. I. For that the issue regarding population of the particular place since was already considered by competent authorities were accepted by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Court and further scrutiny and review of the matter is beyond of the jurisdiction and competency

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

ROLAND 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 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

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

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

ROLAND 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,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,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 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