INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JHARSUGUDA vs. HIRAKHAND TRANSPORT AND MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BRAJARAJ NAGAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.282/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Vs Hirakhand Transport & Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q & प्रत्याक्षेऩ सं/Cross Objection No.04/Ctk/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.282/Ctk/2024) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Hirakhand Transport & Multi Vs Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Agrawala, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.05.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1064895008(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

section 40A(2) (b) is bad in law. 11. For that there is clear-cut distinction between reporting requirement in Form 3CD by the Tax Auditor and disallowance to be made by the Assessing Officer. There could be no disallowance simply on the basis of reporting by Tax Auditor in Form 3CD. 12. For that the Assessing Officer ought

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI DILIP KUMAR GHASHYAMDAS TEBREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

2 | 9 ITA No.16/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2013-14 officers/officials. Further, due to introduction of Vivad Se viswas Scheme, the officers/officials were engaged in implementation of the scheme. Therefore, there was delay of 250 and 234 days in the respective appeals. It was requested to condone the delay. Ld AR for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Consequently

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHO KUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS TIBAREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

2 | 9 ITA No.16/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2013-14 officers/officials. Further, due to introduction of Vivad Se viswas Scheme, the officers/officials were engaged in implementation of the scheme. Therefore, there was delay of 250 and 234 days in the respective appeals. It was requested to condone the delay. Ld AR for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Consequently

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012 - 2013) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Prop. Of New Kanak Jewellery & Kanak Transport, At/Po: New Market, Keonjhar-758001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Arkps 2114 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri B.R.Panda/Satyajit Nanda, Advs. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 18.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. As Per The Office Note/Order Sheet Entry, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 48 Days. In This Regard, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. Considering The Application Along With The Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Dr Did Not Object To The Same, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

condone the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 2 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- I. For that the addition of Rs.21,46,046/- for alleged violation Sec.40A(3) of the IT. Act, without considering the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances involved for purchasing the gold and silver and when the genuineness

ARCHANA PANDIT,GANJAM vs. ITO,WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2016-17 Archana Pandit, Luchapada Archana Pandit, Luchapada Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wad-1, Income Tax Officer, Wad Road, Road, Bank Bank Colony, Colony, Berhampur Berhampur Pan/Gir No. No.Blqpp 9825 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

condone the delay of 456 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a Super Stockist of pharmaceutical products and Baby Foods. It was the submission that the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.29,39,185/-, which was disallowed in its entirety by invoking the provisions of Explanation

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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

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- 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

M/S. TRISHUL TREAD PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2010-2011

section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act by comparing the commission paid with commission paid to the staffs.” 3. When the case was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee and neither any adjournment application was filed. It is observed from the record that the appeal was adjourned at the request of ld Authorised

SHASANK SEKHAR NAYAK, BHUBANESWAR,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.62/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shasank Sekhar Nayak, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar Keshari Bhawan, Bindusagar Road Old Town, Bhubaneswar-751002 Pan No. :Abyn 8766 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038327224(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 370 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Cit-Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally.

condone the delay of 370 days in filing the appeal and appeal is disposed off finally. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 17.12.2019. It was the submission that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from