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

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. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

Delay condoned. We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above Rs.1 crore, that is, Rs.6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore

ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaorissa Cricket Association, Barabati Statidum, Cuttack Pan No.Aaaao 0319 F …………….. Assessee Versus Acit (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

condone the delay of 210 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search & seizure conducted on 28.03.2016 in the residential premises of Sri Ashirbad Behera, Secretary of the assessee. It was the submission that in the course of search one set of document

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI PADMA LOCHAN PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2),, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 1999-2000 Sri Padma Lochan Panda, C Lochan Panda, C- Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 77/3, Palaspali, Bhubaneswar. 77/3, Palaspali, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Agkpp 4821 C Agkpp 4821 C (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/4/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/5/20 /2021 O R D E R

condone the delay of 5207 days in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. Ground Nos.1 to 4 of appeal 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.62,820.00 and agricultural income at Rs.1,00,000.00. The return was processed U/s.143(1)(a) of the I.T Act, 1961. Thereafter

SHRI GIRISH CHANDRA SETHI,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARIPADA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condoned the delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.11.2014 in ITR-4 disclosing total income of Rs.3,16,000/-. In the return of income assessee has stated nature of business

GOPI KRISHNA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

condone the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication. 4. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

SUNIL K EPARI,AMERICA vs. ACIT INTL TAX, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.101/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sunil K Epari, Vs Acit, International Taxation, 123, Putnam Way Silver Spring Bhubaneswar Mechanicsburg, Foreign, United States Of America Pan No. :Abxpe 7883 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra & Shri Prashant Mishra, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22, Dated 28.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 11 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are In Dispute. The First Addition Is In Respect Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.15,99,000/- & The Second

condone the delay of 11 days delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that two additions are in dispute. The first addition is in respect of cash deposit of Rs.15,99,000/- and the second 2 addition is in respect of source for the purchase of an immovable property for Rs.65

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NILAKANTHA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Dcit (Exemptions), Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Nilakantha Educational & M/S. Nilakantha Educational & Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Charitable Trust, At: Anantpur, Charitable Trust, At: Anantpur, Po: Phulnakhara, Dist:Khurda Po: Phulnakhara, Dist:Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatn 4043 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 /10 10/2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 5. We have heard ld D.R. and perused the record of the case. We find that the ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue as under: “ For assessment year 2009-10, the appellant had filed its return in ITR-7 showing taxable income of “ Nil” after claiming exemption

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. M/S. SONTHALIA RICE MILL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. M/S. Sonthalia Rice Mill, Plot M/S. Sonthalia Rice Mill, Plot Cuttack No.1554B, No.1554B, Bidanasi, Bidanasi, Cda, Cda, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aajfm 7681 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K.Sheth M.K.Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl S.C.Mohanty, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 5/4/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17 / 05/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

condone the delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Ground No.1 reads as follows: Ground No.1 reads as follows: P a g e 1 | 12 Assessment Year : 2016-17 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CTT(A) was not justified in ignoring the facts that the assessee had failed

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that