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:

u/s 271AAB of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on this technical aspect.” 13. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Industrial Safety Products Pvt Ltd (supra) has held the issue

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

16-\nDistrict Land Record Survey-Balasore, req attn to page no 58 to 63\nconsisting of the invoices raised and page no 137-DLRS Balasore,\ncontaining the ledger of the party, confirming the transactions\nthrough sales entry and its realisation.\nc. Similarly Rayagada Sl No 27 pg 43, pg 103 to 112 consisting of\nthe invoices raised

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

16, in the matter of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

16, in the matter of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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 condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty

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

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

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

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, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

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. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

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

16-01-2017, before the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Sambalpur. 1.7. The Appellant further filed a Written Submission dated 14-11- 2022 before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). 1.11 However, by the impugned order dated 06-12-2022, the Ld.CIT (Appeals) without considering any of the contentions of the Appellant, arbitrarily confirmed the demand as stated above. 1.12 Being aggrieved, the Appellant

M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

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

16-01-2017, before the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Sambalpur. 1.7. The Appellant further filed a Written Submission dated 14-11- 2022 before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). 1.11 However, by the impugned order dated 06-12-2022, the Ld.CIT (Appeals) without considering any of the contentions of the Appellant, arbitrarily confirmed the demand as stated above. 1.12 Being aggrieved, the Appellant