URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & 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 which are more in the nature of submissions than the grounds of appeal but are reproduced as under: “1. Unjustified Addition of Unsecured Loans u/s 68 of the Act, Ld. AO has erred in facts

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, [deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of: (a) ten per cent for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment; (b) … c.o. No. 08/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 The Explanation to the above section defines

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

unexplained cash credit under s. 68 of the Act of 1961. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), confirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances and the ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court

CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

unexplained cash credit under s. 68 of the Act of 1961. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), confirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances and the ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court

BALADEB MOHAPATRA,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.344/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Shri Baladeb Mohapatra, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Paradeep Pahana, Pankapal, Jagatsinghpur Pan No. : Akhpm 1731 F (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka,Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 20.06.2016 For The A.Y.2011-2012. 2. This Appeal Was Already Disposed Off By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.08.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court, Which Was Registered As Income Tax Appeal No.51/2017 & The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 06.02.2019 Has Directed The Tribunal To Decide The Review Petition To Be Filed By The Assessee As Expeditiously As Possible, Preferably Within A Period Of Four Months From The Date Of Filing Of Such Review Petition. Accordingly, The Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Before The Tribunal & The Tribunal Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee & 2 With A Compliance To The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court, Stated Supra

condonation of delay while considering the review by the Tribunal. 6. Original copy of the impugned order may be returned to the appellant substituting attested photocopies thereof. 7. With the above observation/direction, the appeal stands disposed of. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application

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

GOPINATH MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

cash credit U/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, without any speaking order, only placing reliance on the AIR 8s CIB Information and as such the addition of the aforesaid sum are not only unjustified but also illegal 8s liable to be deleted. 7. For that the addition of Rs. 3,32,000/- as unexplained expenditure

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

M/S. ORISONS MACRO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

unexplained Cash Credit U/s. 68 amounting to Rs. 49,16,000/- on account of credit to the HDFC Bank A/c. is incorrect and bad in law as the above amount has been credited in the normal course of business operation for which the details are available with the Appellant Company.” 3. The appeal is time barred by 729 days

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