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

In the result, appeals stand partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

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 Id 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

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

HEMANT KUMAR MAJHI,KONGARA vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and passed order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 09.08.2024 did not adjudicate the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal

LADI SRINIVAS RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

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

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

condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The first issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,56,000/- u/s.68 of the Act on account of alleged gift

PRADEEP PATI,KENDUJHAR vs. ITO,WARD, KENDUJHAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.540 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pradeep Pati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Brahmanagaon College Road, Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhar Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Onjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 Kendujhar 758001 Pan/Gir No.Amaapp 8010 D Amaapp 8010 D (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 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), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18/11/2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Nfac/2020- 21/10251602 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri P.R.Mohaty, P.R.Mohaty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.71,40,000/- as STCG and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards unexplained term deposit deserves to be allowed on the ground not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions

BIJAY KUMAR SWAIN,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Before Shri Rajpal Yadavrajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandar.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Bijay Kumar Swain, Bijay Kumar Swain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Income Tax Officer, Nfac, M/S. M/S. Jholei Swain Jholei Swain & & Sons, Sons, Delhi Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Khajoor Godown, Chhatra Bazar, Fruit Market, Cuttack Fruit Market, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalatendu Sahu, Ca Lalatendu Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Pandaper R.K.Pandathis 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), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.12.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Nfac/2012- 13/10150448 Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 14. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 17 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By Petition Supported By An Affidavit, Inter Alia, Stating That Due , Inter Alia, Stating That Due To His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The His High Blood Pressure & Prolonged Illness, He Was Advised By The Doctor To Take One Month Rest. Therefore, There Was Doctor To Take One Month Rest. Therefore, There Was A Delay Of 17 Days In P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised, however, all these relate to the exparte order of ld CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.60,54,007/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the I.T.Act

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANIPATNA vs. RAJESH HANS, KHARIAR ROAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Puruna Income Tax Officer, Puruna Vs. Rajesh Hans, Ward No.189, Rajesh Hans, Ward No.189, Pada, Bhawanipatna, Dist: Pada, Bhawanipatna, Dist: High School Pada, Khariar High School Pada, Khariar Kalahandi Road, Diost: Nuapada Road, Diost: Nuapada Pan/Gir No. No.Atwph 9565 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Partha Nayak, Ca , Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/20 024 O R D E R

condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Grounds of appeal raised are as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AOP under the head unexplained money

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

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.

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 by 144 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition 21.11.2024 supported by affidavit, stating the reason that although the appealorder was uploaded by NFAC in the portal on 26.4.2024 but same

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

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

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

HADIBANDHU PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Hadibandhu Pradhan Hadibandhu Pradhan, S/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Angul Ward, Angul Angul Ward, Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul- 759103 Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adwpp 5210 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/0 /04/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.9.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10141/2019 2/10141/2019-19 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 .

delay of 65 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 6. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had withdrawn Rs.10 lakhs in cash on 24.5.2016 and 18.6.2016 and Rs.5 lakhs had been P a g e 2 | 6 Assessment Year : 2017-18 transferred to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo

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

unexplained sources appear factually unfounded, hurried and premature. The said addition is directed to be deleted, and the appeal on this count is allowed.” Difference of Rs.1,00,000/- v) The .difference of Rs. 1,00,000 in the balance of sundry creditors has already been stated \eafiier to have been inexplicably added back by the AO. The Appellant5

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

VAIBHAV RONOKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-2013 2013 Vaibhav Raonka Vaibhav Raonka, C/O. Hardware Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Junction, Junction, Plot Plot No.49, No.49, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aixpr 3837 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka , Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/ 201 / 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/1 12/ 2019 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. P a g e 1 | 6 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That

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