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

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

6 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 assessee succeeds on legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act." 23. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sushil Kumar Paul vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2274/Ko1/2019 vide order dated 15.12.2022, held as under:- "From the perusal of the above proposition, we observe that sub section

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

6 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 assessee succeeds on legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act." 23. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sushil Kumar Paul vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2274/Ko1/2019 vide order dated 15.12.2022, held as under:- "From the perusal of the above proposition, we observe that sub section

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

6 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 assessee succeeds on legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act." 23. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sushil Kumar Paul vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2274/Ko1/2019 vide order dated 15.12.2022, held as under:- "From the perusal of the above proposition, we observe that sub section

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:

6 | 14 Assessment Year : 2015-16 imposition of penalty u/s.271AAB, therefore, in no circumstances, one single order imposing penalty u/s.271AAB on the addition made vide two separate orders could be passed. Moreover, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271AAB in the order passed u/s.143(3) cannot be left undecided without there being any speaking order passed for imposing or dropping the proceedings

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6 the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ODISHA vs. ODISHA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

6. In this admitted factual matrix, our indulgence is called to adjudicate the legal ground and in doing so, without reproducing provision of section 270A of the Act in verbatim, it shall be purposive to state that, from AY 2017-18 Ld. AO, CIT, CIT(A) and PCIT are severally empowered at a discretion to initiate and levy a penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a wellaccepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore

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

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

11,609 against the returned income of Rs. 1,609. In the said order penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was initiated. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 dated 29/05/2020 was passed which stated that a mistake has crept in the assessment order wherein inadvertently section 271(1)(b) was mentioned in place of correct section 272A(1)(d). It stated that

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), BHUBANESWAR

u/s 147 rws 144 of the previous\nAY, i.e. 2013-14 & 147 rws 1448 for AY 2016-17 (which is under\nappeal in ITA No 565 fixed for hearing today) on similar issue, the\nLd AO, on perusal of the similar documents submitted before him\nhad accepted the credits to be realisation from Sales and Debtors.\nRequesting your kind attention

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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS 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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

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

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed

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

11. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years. 12. In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed