BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation should be allowed as claim.” Ground Nos.A & B 6. On behalf of the assessee, Shri B.K.Tiberwala, Managing Director of the company appeared in person and drew our attention towards Ground No.A & B. He submitted that there is no independent exercise of judicial mind by the Assessing Officer and the ld CIT(A) confirmed the said action. Therefore, the orders

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

depreciation which are to be allowed as per the provisions of the Act.” P a g e 1 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 3. The appeal is time barred by 359 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Managing Partner of M/s. Deokaran Das Rambilash, wherein, it is stated that

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

depreciation, then it was not open to the Pr.CIT to treat the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within meaning of section 263 of the Act. Therefore the Pr.CIT order under section 263 setting aside the assessment be cancelled and AO's order under section 143

M/S. BHAGABATI BUILD & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

section 44AD of the Act, in the other hand, he has allowed depreciation of Rs.66,26,066/- as claimed by the assessee u/s 32 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also allowed depreciation from the estimated profit stating therein that “considering the volume of the business of the assessee, the depreciation is allowed separately on the estimated profit

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

depreciation on the cost of leasehold land shall be allowed alternatively U/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other section deem appropriate by the Hon' ble Bench. 3 Valuation of closing stock of coal Rs.11840.00 Grounds of (due to impact of overburden lakhs Appeal No.3(2) removal expenditure) Page ref. of Asst. order:4-6 Page ref.of

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 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, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

depreciation of Rs.l,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although both the issues were not under limited scrutiny but from the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers

RAJESWAR THAKUR,BHAWANIPATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), SAMBALPUR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

143(2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.l, is dismissed". xvi.) In the case of CIT vs. HiTech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

SIBA NARAYAN ROUT,BHADRAK vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation and Assessed total income at Rs.1,80,48,740/- and passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.10.2010. 11. Subsequently