TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

addition has been made on the quantum. However, a penalty provision has been invoked u/s 270A for ‘under reporting income’. The ‘under Reporting income’ occurs when a person discloses smaller amount than their actual income. In the present case, whatever income reported/declared by the Assessee has been accepted by the Department, therefore, it is not the case of reporting smaller

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

addition has been made on the quantum. However, a penalty provision has been invoked u/s 270A for ‘under reporting income’. The ‘under Reporting income’ occurs when a person discloses smaller amount than their actual income. In the present case, whatever income reported/declared by the Assessee has been accepted by the Department, therefore, it is not the case of reporting smaller

PANDA INFRATECH LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Panda Panda Infratech Infratech Limited, Limited, Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Plot Plot No.620, No.620, Janpath, Janpath, Income Tax, Central Circle- Income Tax, Central Circle Saheed Saheed Nagar, Nagar, 2, Bhubaneswar. 2, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcp7216 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & C.A.Parida & C.A.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orde Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 Dated 10.8.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10013/2018 2/10013/2018-19 Against Against The The Penalty Penalty Order Order Passed Passed U/S.271Aab Of The Act U/S.271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

addition of Rs.1 crore in the penalty order passed u/s.271AAB on 30.3.2018 is hereby deleted. 10. Now coming to the issue that the proceedings initiated vide issue of notice alongwith reassessment order dated 31.10.2017, the notice so issued is as under: P a g e 7 | 14 Assessment Year : 2015-16 P a g e 8 | 14 Assessment Year

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

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

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

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

THE KORAPUT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,JEYPORE, KORAPUT vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, on 29.09.2021 assessing the total income at Rs. 14,80,76,031/-. 3. In the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, dated 29.09.2021, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and had levied penalty vide order dated 30.03.2022 at Rs.4,53,85,623/- being

SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO,RAJSUNAKHALA,NAYAGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct in dismissing this ground of appeal. 3. That, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation and therefore liable to be quashed. 4. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 25th November, 2008 re-assigning the cases to the ACIT(OSD), who is the Assessing Officer in the present case, is P a g e 45 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 not maintainable and consequently, the orders passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in the case

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

addition of the same to the returned income of the appellant is not factually correct and legally tenable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted by the assessee in the statement of facts are that the assessee

NIROD KUMAR SAHOO,MEENABAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,DHENKANAL WARD,DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bazar, Dhenkanal Bazar, Dhenkanal-759001 Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahups 4395 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Natabar Panda, 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

addition came to be confirmed by the Tribunal also. It was the submission that show cause notice u/s.274 r.w. section 271 of the Income Tax Act came to be issued on 22.12.2016, wherein, the Assessing Officer has not struck-off the irrelevant portion as to whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing

PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.822&823/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg Huf Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (Pan: Aahhp0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.822&823/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg HUF ITO, Ward-1, ROURKELA Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (PAN: AAHHP0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Shakeer Ahamed

PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.822&823/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg Huf Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (Pan: Aahhp0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.822&823/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg HUF ITO, Ward-1, ROURKELA Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (PAN: AAHHP0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Shakeer Ahamed

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.763&764/CTK/2025 2. Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. ITA No.763/CTK/2025 – It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issue

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.763&764/CTK/2025 2. Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. ITA No.763/CTK/2025 – It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issue

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

income of Rs.1,05,36,730.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, both additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7.. For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

income of Rs.1,05,36,730.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, both additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7.. For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

income of Rs.1,05,36,730.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, both additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7.. For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

income of Rs.1,05,36,730.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, both additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7.. For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

income of Rs.1,05,36,730.00, by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as such, both additions made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 7.. For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal