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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 | 12 Assessment Year : 2001-02 reasons in reply to the notice issued by the Registry regarding condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the petition. Ld CIT DR agreed to the fact that the impugned first appellate order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.10.2007 and served

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

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

Depreciation allowable Rs. 34,35,249/- D. Income from business Rs. 21,47,463/- E. Income from house property Rs. 87,115/- F. Income from other sources Rs. 7,63,190/- Gross total income Rs.29,97,768/- Less; Deduction u/s.,8OC Rs. 1,00,000/- Total income Rs. 28,97,768/- Or, u/s. 288A Rs. 28,97,770/- Assessed

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the various judicial decisions including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT s. Sesa

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench 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 This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

depreciation was allowed overlooking section 8OVVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being so, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal erred

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

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