BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

44 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,346Mumbai1,078Jaipur347Indore325Ahmedabad318Kolkata241Surat232Pune207Hyderabad202Bangalore175Chennai157Chandigarh129Rajkot129Karnataka105Lucknow94Visakhapatnam84Raipur66Amritsar57Allahabad54Cuttack44Cochin41Nagpur37Calcutta36Patna35Guwahati35Agra33Jabalpur29Jodhpur24Dehradun18Panaji17Ranchi12SC6Varanasi4Telangana2Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)58Section 271F56Section 271A45Penalty35Section 27434Section 153A31Section 14725Undisclosed Income18Section 271

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 310/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 143(2)16
Limitation/Time-bar16
Addition to Income10

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

ITA 311/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 312/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 313/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 307/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

SUJIT KUMAR BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ready perusal :- “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Dated : 29.3.2014 To Sujit Kumar Behera, Plot Not. A/356, Sahied Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2011-12 it appears to me that you:- ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… have without reasonable cause

SAMBIT RESORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 429/CTK/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri G.Naik/S.K.Sarangi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suvendu Dutta, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

penalty proceedings are being initiated "for furnishing of inaccurate particular!!; or that for concealment of income." 12. For ready perusal, the notice issued by the AO u/s 271(l)(c) in both the assessment years is reproduced as under :- “Where in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 it appears to me that

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

ITA 565/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income- tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

MIRA DEVI DASRAPURIA,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.363/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Vs. Ito, Khurda Main Road, Khurda-752055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abkpm 8607 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 15.7.2016, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0317/15-16, U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Though The Assessee Has Furnished Information & Accepted The Income In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Retail Trading In Cement & Iron Materials & Wholesale Distributor Of Airtel Rcv & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 29.09.2011 With Total Income Of Rs.1,81,000/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire. In compliance, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the information. The AO on perusal of ledger accounts found that the assessee has received commission from Airtel distributorship and such commission was not disclosed in the profit and loss account

SAMAPIKA JENA,ANGUL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs.3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty

SAMAPIKA JENA,ANGUL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs.3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty

SAMAPIKA JENA,ANGUL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs.3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty

SAMAPIKA JENA,ANGUL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs.3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty

SAMAPIKA JENA,ANGUL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs.3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty

SAMPA ANUPURBA,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 61/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153A of the Act assessing total income at Rs.7,26,830/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs.63