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

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 u/s. 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.28,97,770/-. Calculation

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

unexplained income deposited in the bank account and added same back to the total income of the assessee. It was submitted that in respect of the issue of agricultural income, the advance sale of land, income from house property and brokerage & commission, had been considered by the AO and had been specifically accepted by the AO after due examination

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.

property constructed does not pertain to this year. Hence, passing the said order beyond due date allowed u/s 153B of the LT. Act is barred by limitation & void. The assessment order passed by the AD u/s 153A/143(3) on 14.10.2016, being barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act becomes invalid and needs to be quashed. 2) That

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

cash book, bank book, other related books of account, ledger copies alongwith supporting bills/vouchers relating, however contended that the net profit @ 10% be estimated on gross contract receipts as per the last year but the basis was not provided by the assessee. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the total receipt on account of interest received is not under

BHAGABAN NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

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

unexplained investment of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he has sold his house for Rs.21,00,000/- and paid tax of Rs.91,956/- during the year under appeal. Out of the sale proceeds, he has invested Rs.6,00,000/- during the year in appeal towards his contribution in the capital

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.

unexplained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.25,78,715/- is confirmed to the extent of Rs.20,78,715/- and the appellant get relief of Rs.5 lacs”. A copy of the First Appeal order is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2. 12. That the appellant as against the order of Learned CIT(A) filed Second Appeal at this Forum

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

property should be Zero whereas the Ld. AO estimated at Rs.2,40,000/- . Therefore, the additions of Rs.1,29,797/- made under the head should be deleted. 5. That, the Ld. AO erred in facts I n rejecting the books of account without any plausible justification and the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the action