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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

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

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 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act had observed that: P a g e 9 | 14 Assessment Year : 2015-16 “It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7 9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted

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

9. Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide adequate

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

RAM KUMAR DAITAPATI,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, PURI, PURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Ram Ram Kumar Kumar Daitapati, Daitapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Puri Income Tax Officer, Ward, Puri Matimandap Sah Matimandap Sahi, Nabata Khan Lane, Po/Ps-Dist Dist: Puri Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aeppd 2413 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/0 /07/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.2.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10130/2019 2/10130/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri The Assessee. Shri Sanjkay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

u/s 271(1)(c) )(c) dated 6.9.2017 is reproduced as under : reproduced as under :- P a g e 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 P a g e 2 | 5 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 4. It was the submission of ld AR that it is not clear from the said notice issued u/s.271

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 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 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. 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

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