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)

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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)

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

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

section (5), therefore, confers a jurisdiction on the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation, provided it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the same. The question is whether the Tribunal can, out of its own, condone the delay on a finding that there is sufficient cause for not presenting

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 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), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

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:

condone the delay, hence, the condition petition be rejected. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that there has been a delay of 627 days in filing the present appeal. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit

M/S ZERINA MARINE (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.115/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1998-1999) M/S Zerina Marines (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar At-67, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaacz 2200 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. As mentioned earlier, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by substantial cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing

TAPAN KUMAR SETHY,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 253(3) of the Act, an appeal is required to be filed by the assessee or the Department within sixty days from the date of communication of the order to be appealed against on the assessee or the CIT, as the case may be and under s. 253(5), Tribunal may admit an appeal

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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

8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt

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)

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 (12th Edition-Page 541) thus:- "Statutes of Limitation are thus retrospective in so far as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after

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 the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A. For that, the order of the forums below are illegal absurd, improper and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the orders passed are liable to be deleted. B. For that

JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, SAMBALPUR

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

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

condone the delay in filing Form 10B up to a period of 365 days. The CIT (Appeals), NFAC also took note of a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat Oil And Allied Industries reported in 1993 ITR (201) 325 wherein it was held that the filing of the auditor's report along