DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

property held under the trust. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled to exemption u/s.11 and as such, this excess amount of Rs.5,65,70,741/- should have been brought to tax. 7. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT (Exemption), issued show cause notice u/s.263(1) of the Act on 26.3.2021, to which, the assessee requested for adjournment of case for 15 days

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

house property made by the AO as there was no sale of flats by the appellant. Receipts of 10 flats from the builder in place of HUF’s land is not a transfer in relation to Section 2(47) of the I.T.Act but only conversion of form of asset from land to building(flats) on same price

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

justice & equity.” 5. The appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 54 days. The revenue has filed condonation petition, stating that due to nation-wide lockdown for COVID-19 pandemic, offices were closed and subsequently worked with limited officers/officials. Further, due to introduction of Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, the officers were engaged in implementation of the scheme, therefore, there

BIKASH AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015

natural justice, unjustified, erroneous, arbitrary, contrary to fact, bad in law, without jurisdiction and /or in excess of jurisdiction and legally untenable. 2. For that the non-consideration of claim of assessee of indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.59;39,712, while computing Capital Gain under income tax act and non-consideration of the expenditure amounting Rs.5

SARADA BHUSHAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2009-2010

house property” and the said loss of Rs.1,50,000/- has been claimed for set off after the computation of total income. I also find that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without hearing the assessee without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, it would meet the ends of natural justice

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL,SUNDARGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal in the case of Mahesh

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am It(Ss)A No.117-119/Ctk/2018 ( Assessment Years :2011-2012 To 2013-2014) Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.146&147/Ctk/2018 (Assessment Years :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Bhubaneswar Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.44/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Sanju Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Aavpa 4328 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: In The Above Captioned Seven Appeals, Five Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessees & Two Appeals Have 2 It(Ss)A Nos.44/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.117-119/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.146&147/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.382/Ctk/2018 Been Filed By The Department Which Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.01.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively.

house property during A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012- 13. 15. We further note that as per the mandatory provisions of section 142A, the AO can make reference to valuation officer only if he is required to estimate the cost of construction. 17 IT(SS)A Nos.44/CTK/2018 IT(SS)A Nos.117-119/CTK/2018 IT(SS)A Nos.146&147/CTK/2018 & ITA No.382/CTK/2018 Thus

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from dealing in shares. It was the submission that the assessee had applied for shares in M/s AAR Infrastructure Limited and 50000 shares were allotted to the assessee at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs on 25.01.2011. Ld. AR drew our attention to page 14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from dealing in shares. It was the submission that the assessee had applied for shares in M/s AAR Infrastructure Limited and 50000 shares were allotted to the assessee at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs on 25.01.2011. Ld. AR drew our attention to page 14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page

SRI MANOJ DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.405/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manoj Dash, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.F/2, Amrita Residency Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aeopd 6174 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Second Round For Hearing. Therefore, The Bench Proceeded To Dispose Off The Case After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Dr & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Additions Made Therein Are Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

house building loan of Rs.1,50,000.00, particularly when, it was disallowed by the learned A.O. on wrong interpretation of law and the Assessee is lawfully entitled for the same. The impugned disallowance, thus being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. For that, your Appellant craves leave

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

Housing Finance Ltd., and State Bank of India. The date of creation of the charge being in 2018. In the balance sheet of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Pvt Ltd., under assets, the land has been shown at Rs.10,79,20,150/- in the case of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited for the year ended 31.3.2016. He further drew our attention

SRIPRAKASH PANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2010-11

natural justice. Therefore, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(appeals) is liable to be sett aside the appeals is to be allowed in merits. 3. That, the Ld. AO erred in facts and circumstances in disallowing the entire deduction of Rs.4,36,931/- u/s 10(13A) whereas as per the provisions of the Act Rs.1

BANDAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Bandan Mohanty Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Plot-899, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar, 751006 Pan/Gir No. Afmpm 7898 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is 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 22.4.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14864/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 304 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 28.4.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.4.2024 Was Downloaded P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

house property. He filed the return of income on 22.2.2018 for the assessment year 2016-17 and the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and in response to the notices, the assessee furnished related documents/details/clarifications/explanations time to time through e- assessment mode. The Assessing Officer noticed that

SMT RENUBALA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.77/Ctk/2005 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2001-2002) Smt. Renubala Panda, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Prop. M/S Jageswari Traders, Bhubaneswar Plot No.1656, Sastri Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspp 6362 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Aditya Rath, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

house property and filed her return of income on 29.01.2001 showing total income at Rs.97,670/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Upon selection of the case of assessee for scrutiny under CASS, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Finally, the AO completed the assessment determining total income of 2 the assessee at Rs.22,32,230/- making

SUMANTA KUMAR DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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.36/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sumanta Kumar Das, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), Plot No.-Lb-118, Stage-Iv, Bhubaneswar Budheswari, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adypd 8979 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 27.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of Three Years Three Months & Five Days In Filing The Appeal Of Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Prolonged Illness & Negligence Of The Previous Counsel, He Could Not File The Appeal In Time. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. We Have Also Gone Through The Said Application Along With The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Explaining

justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bona fides. 4. Considering the application along with the affidavit of the assessee

RASID KHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.77/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) Mr.Rasid Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Flat No.A-3/5, Bhubaneswar Chandrama Apartment, Unit-3, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aefpk 0922 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 10.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2008-2009, On The Following Grounds :- 1) For That The Orders Of The Forums Below Are Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjust & Excessive In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) For That The Learned Cit(A) Should Have Allowed The Appeal In Full, But In Twisting The Facts He Has Allowed The Appeal In Part, Which Is Liable To Be Modified/Set-Aside. 3) For That The Appellant Has Got Sufficient Source To Explain The Investment Of Rs.25,78,715/-,But The First Cit(A) Allowed Rs.5,00,000/- & Second Cit(A) Allowed Rs. 12,38,363, Thus Totaling Rs.17,38,363/-, Hence The Balance Rs.8,40,352/- Being Explainable Should Be Allowed In Toto. 4) For That Out Of Total Addition Of Rs.20,75,715/-, Which Remained For Consideration Of The Learned Cit(A), He Allowed Only Rs.12,38,363/- Although All The Material Facts Were Before Him, Hence For Explaining The Balance Of Rs.8,40,352/- The Appeal Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

justice the appeal is liable to be set-aside. 6) For that the addition at Rs.8,40,352/- is liable to be deleted in appeal and return figure of the appellant should be accepted in toto. 7) For that other grounds will be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. Ground No.1 & 7 are general in nature, therefore