ARYA AGRI & AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the respective delay in filing both the appeals and appeals are heard finally. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee in ITA No.461/CTK/2024 for A.Y.2016-2017, wherein the assesee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the impugned Appellate Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt

ARYA AGRI & AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the respective delay in filing both the appeals and appeals are heard finally. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee in ITA No.461/CTK/2024 for A.Y.2016-2017, wherein the assesee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the impugned Appellate Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt

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

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

unexplained cash deposited u/s.69A of the Act, as such, the consequential addition being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6. For that, the Impugned estimation of net profit @7.57% from cloth business and 2.0% from petrol pump business separately made by the learned A.O., on the basis of previous year

RABINDRANATH MOHANTY,JAGATPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.20/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rabindranath Mohanty, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Gopabandhu Nagar, Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan No. :Afcpm 0063 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a manufacturer of polythene products and in truck running business. The return filed by 2 the assessee came to be taken up for limited scrutiny to examine “whether the cash in hand shown

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

unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act and additions were made thereafter. It was the submission that all the purchases and the sales were by cheques, supported by invoices and entered in the stock register. The ld. AR specifically submitted that for none of the years

KARANI DAN CHANDAK,JAJPUR ROAD vs. AO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18 Karani Dan Chandak, Prop. M/S. Vs. Addl.Joint/Dy.Asst.Commssioner Chandan Zarda Store, Jajpur Of Income Tax, Nfac, Delhi Road, Jajpur Pan/Gir No.Aeppc 8155 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,02,93,425/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account during the year. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned

SAHABAJ KHAN,BHADRAK vs. ITO BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Sahabaj Khan, Bhadrak Egg Sahabaj Khan, Bhadrak Egg Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Trader, Fish Market, Kacheri Trader, Fish Market, Kacheri Ward, Charampa, Bhadrak. Ward, Charampa, Bhadrak. Bazar, Bhadrak Bazar, Bhadrak Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aqgpk 1248 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Digant Das, Digant Das, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr

condone the delay of 56 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a wholesale dealer in eggs. It was the submission that the impugned assessment year 2012-13 was the first year of business of the assessee. The assessee had a turnover of Rs.5

MANORANJAN SAHU,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

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

condone the delay of 102 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, derives income from wholesale trading of eggs and filed its return of income on 09.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,87,060/-, which

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

condone the delay of 1400 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1.That the order passed by the Learned C.I.T.(A) is without proper appreciation of fact and application of mind, contrary to weight of evidence, contrary to settled law and without carrying out this Hon'ble Bench observation, therefore

DIBAKAR SWAIN,CHHOTI NIKIRAI, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO, WARD KENDRAPADA, KENDRAPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Dibakar Dibakar Swain, Swain, Vs. Ito, Ward, Chakargunathpur, Chakargunathpur, Chhoti Chhoti Kendrapara. Nikirai, Kendrapara Nikirai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Bbnxps 2582 N (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 Date Of Hearing : 09/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Delhi Dated Dated Dated 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 In In In Appeal Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019 No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019-20 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 423 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Ground No.1 of appeal is general in nature. 6. Ground No.2 relates to addition of Rs.44,92,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act. Ground No.3 relates to estimation of income by applying 6% profit rate on declared turnover resulting into the addition of Rs.30

NANDIKISHOR TRIPATHY,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Nanda Nanda Kishore Kishore Tripathy, Tripathy, Vs. Assessing Unit, Income Tax Assessing Unit, Income Tax At/Po/Ps- Sindurpank, Dist: Sindurpank, Dist: Department, Delhi Department, Delhi Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. No.Ahept 2184 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/11/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/20 024

condone the delay of 4 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an agriculturist and had been dealing in paddy. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and treated the entire deposits in the bank account

DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK vs. M/S. SATYAM CASTING (P) LIMITED, GOPALPUR

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Bhavan, Shelter Shelter Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A-2, Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Gopalpur, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aafcs 1536 H (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.19/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.28/Ctk/2021): A.Y. 2016 No.28/Ctk/2021): A.Y. 2016-17 M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt M/S. Satyam Casting Pvt Vs Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A Ltd., At./Po: Plot No.A-2, Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Bhavan, Shelter Shelter Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Choudwar, Industrial Estate, Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Gopalpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aafcs 1536 H (Cross Objector) Cross Objector) .. ( Appellant) Appellant)

condone the delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. In revenue’s appeal, ld CIT DR submitted that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel. It was the submission that the total sales of the assessee during the year was Rs.31.17 crores and the income from Derivatives

BANDAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Bandan Mohanty Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Plot-899, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar, 751006 Pan/Gir No. Afmpm 7898 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 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 22.4.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14864/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 304 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 28.4.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.4.2024 Was Downloaded P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from salary and income from house property. He filed the return of income on 22.2.2018 for the assessment year 2016-17 and the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued

BICHITRA NANDA MALLICK,NISCHINTAKOILI vs. PR.CIT-1, , BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the order of the Pr

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Bichitra Nanda Mallick, Bichitra Nanda Mallick, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, At: At: Praharajpur, Praharajpur, Gotara, Gotara, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Mahanga, Mahanga, Nischintakoili, Nischintakoili, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Apqpm 9746 L (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 66 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was the submission of ld AR that the assessment in the case of the assessee came to be passed u/s.144 of the Act on 6.12.2019, wherein, on account of non-filing of the return by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had treated the deposits

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

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

condone 2 the delay of 784 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee and appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from letting out of house property and income from share transaction. The assessee had filed its return of income

KANHU CHARAN COUDA,NAYAGARH vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-2018 Kanhu Charan Kanhu Charan Gouda Vs. Ito,Khordha Rohibanka, Odagaon, Nayagarh, Odagaon, Nayagarh, Khordha-7520 752090 Pan/Gir No. No.Aubpg 5312 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. K. Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 26.4.2024 In In Appeal Appeal No. No. Nfac/201617/10307 Nfac/201617/10307110 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2018. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

cash deposits received for and on behalf of the bank and credits by Bank by debiting the account of customers who have withdrawn through Micro ATM provide to the Assesse as unexplained money without understanding the fact in proper prospective. Therefore the addition is non application of mind and deserves to be deleted.” 4. The appeal is barred by limitation