GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C of the Act. Ground No. 5: Even otherwise since the delay in filing Form 10 is condonable

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

2) of Section 19 FEMA and if the Company shows sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time then the Tribunal can condone the delay and entertain the appeal, especially when there is no accrued right to the respondent to plead a time bar. The legal position is summarized thus by Justice G.P. Singh in Principles of Statutory Interpretation

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

2 the control of the assessee as the forced shutdown & lockdown along with travel restrictions in continuance of havoc of Covid-19 pandemic, it was not possible to have consultation and preparation of appeal to be filed with the entrusted authorised legal consultant resulting in the delay which may kindly be condoned as we neither acted deliberately nor in defiance

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee did not press Ground No.1 of appeal. Therefore, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. P a g e 2 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading

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

5 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 appeal has been filed on 5.11.2019 thereby causing a delay of 133 days. It was mentioned that no reasons for the delay in filing appeal between the Cyclone ‘Fani’ and the filing of the appeal after 4 ½ months has been explained. It was the submission that Shri A.K.Swain, CA has not filed any affidavit

NABA UTKAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. However, while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the ld. CIT(A) has no power to condone the delay for late filing of Form 10B. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

2 | 9 ITA Nos.405 & 406 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-2022 delay. It was the prayer that the delay in filing in both the appeals may be condoned and issues restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that though the assessee has made various claims such

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD,, BHUANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

2 | 9 ITA Nos.405 & 406 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-2022 delay. It was the prayer that the delay in filing in both the appeals may be condoned and issues restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that though the assessee has made various claims such

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

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500