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

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

JINCE KURIAN,SAMBALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1) SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals stand partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing.\n4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A\nperusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the Id CIT(A), NFAC has given four\nopportunities as is evident from the order at page 3 but the assessee failed to\nresponse

JINCE KURIAN,SAMBALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are 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 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities as is evident from the order at page 3 but the assessee failed to response

JINCE KURIAN,SAMBALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO,WARD 2(1),SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are 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 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities as is evident from the order at page 3 but the assessee failed to response

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

unexplained investment U/s. 69 read with Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental

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

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

PEOPLES FORUM,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CIT(EXEMPTION)HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the stay petition stands dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P. No.12/Ctk/2023 People People Forums Forums, Hig-97, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Hyderabad Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaatpo 2214 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawala, Ca/S.K.Hota, Adv /S.K.Hota, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 8. At the outset, it was submitted by ld AR that the order passed u/s.12AB(4) on 20.6.2023 did not contain the Document Identification Number (DIN No.) and consequently in view of the circular issued by CBDT in Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.8.2019, the order

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

MR. SAGIR ALAM KHAN,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, , KEONJHAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.354/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Mr. Sagir Alam Khan, Vs Ito, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar At : Magurgadia, Po: Keonjhargarh Dist : Keonjhar-758001 Pan No. : Anvpk 1400 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is engaged in the business of footwear. The assessee had purchased a property for Rs.14 2 lakhs whereas the actual value has been shown at Rs.22 lakhs

NARENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,DHENKANAL vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Sri Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Sri Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer, Officer, At/Po: At/Po: Gandia, Gandia, Dist: Dist: Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal Denkanal. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Bgcps 4276 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 26 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is being disposed of on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 30.12.2016. It was the submission that the assessment was a ‘Limited Scrutiny assessment’ as has been specifically mentioned in page