L N FINANCE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,TARAPUR vs. ITO, WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 L.N.Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Society Paradeep Ward, Limited, Tarapur, Paradeep, Orissa Raghunathpur, Jagatsinghpur 754132, Orissa Pan/Gir No.Aabal0759R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca Revenue By: Shri. S.C Mothanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024

reassessment order was passed on 29.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 29,39,930/- was made u/s. 69A of the Act, in the hands of the assessee by treating the cash deposit

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

cash deposited in the bank account of Rs.1,09,10,000/-, which represents the income already offered by the assessee in the form of brokerage & commission and in respect of income from the house property. Coming to the issue of agricultural 17 income of Rs.16,76,505/-, a perusal of the assessment order in the assessment year

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

cash on hand were explained. 3. From the above chain of events, it is clear that the A.O. had not made any enquiry at the time of completion of original assessment order U/S.153C of the Act. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: a) Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nagal Garment Industries

MIRNAL MEHTA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WRD-2(4), , CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Cuttack Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack Pan No. :Afupm 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28/04/2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052428107(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. Ar Has Filed His Written Submissions, Which Read As Under :- Written Submission Facts Of The Case -- The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. The Appellant Filed His Audited Return Of Income For The Aforesaid Assessment Year. The Appellant'S Return Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass On Reason For Substantial Cash Deposits In Banks. Notices Were Served On Appellant Regarding The Matter For Verification. In Response To The Notices & Show Cause Notices The Appellant Produced All The Materials Alongwith Books Of Accounts & All The Bank Accounts Statement For Verification. The Same Was Duly Verified By The Assessing Officer & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 31/12/2019. The Ao On Verification Of Bank Accounts Found That The Assessee Has Deposited Rs.58,65,000/- In The Bank Account With Icici Bank Ltd. & Treated As An Unaccounted Cash Sales Of The Assessee & Thus Gross Profit Of The Assessee Was Estimated @ 8% On The Total

cash deposits are also reflected in the bank account of the assessee. No difference in the stock maintained by the assessee has also been pointed out nor has any undisclosed transaction being found. It was the submission that just because the income of the assessee has been estimated, it cannot be held that the assessee has under reported its income

MR. MADAN LAL GUPTA,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.379/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Madan Lal Gupta Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak Near Charampa College, Tishalpur, Rahanja, Charampa, Bhadrak, 756101 Pan No. : Acxpg 7862 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R. Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 18/10/2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10541/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 181 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 181 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

cash deposited in the books of account of reassessed on 05.12.2016. It was the submission that the bank of the assesee

RAJ KISHORE PRUSTY,KENDRAPARA vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

cash deposit by the assessee and the loan of Rs.20 lakhs of Tushar Kanta Parida has been received by the assessee through banking channel and the creditor Sri Parida has received the amount from Hariom Vanijya (NBFC), which cannot be doubted or discarded in any manner by the revenue authorities. Ld AR vehemently pointed out that when the outstanding amount

PURUSHOTTAM DAYAL TULSHYAN,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.50/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 Pan No. :Aakpt 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 18.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2015. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2021 & The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. Thereafter The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Found The Said Order Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Revised The Said Order Wherein He Has Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee By Rs.4,02,90,000/- On Account Of Addition U/S.68 Of The Act. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Present Appeal Before Us.

cash deposit of Rs.4,02,90,000/- using the bank accounts of Shri Mukesh Sharma and Shri Paras Sharma, the source of which required to be explained." During the course of reassessment

RASID KHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.77/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) Mr.Rasid Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Flat No.A-3/5, Bhubaneswar Chandrama Apartment, Unit-3, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aefpk 0922 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 10.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2008-2009, On The Following Grounds :- 1) For That The Orders Of The Forums Below Are Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjust & Excessive In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) For That The Learned Cit(A) Should Have Allowed The Appeal In Full, But In Twisting The Facts He Has Allowed The Appeal In Part, Which Is Liable To Be Modified/Set-Aside. 3) For That The Appellant Has Got Sufficient Source To Explain The Investment Of Rs.25,78,715/-,But The First Cit(A) Allowed Rs.5,00,000/- & Second Cit(A) Allowed Rs. 12,38,363, Thus Totaling Rs.17,38,363/-, Hence The Balance Rs.8,40,352/- Being Explainable Should Be Allowed In Toto. 4) For That Out Of Total Addition Of Rs.20,75,715/-, Which Remained For Consideration Of The Learned Cit(A), He Allowed Only Rs.12,38,363/- Although All The Material Facts Were Before Him, Hence For Explaining The Balance Of Rs.8,40,352/- The Appeal Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

reassessment at an income of Rs.27,78,340/-. Against this order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided the case

MAA PAHADWALI RICE MILL,BOUDH, ODISHA vs. ITO, WARD, PHULBANI, PHULBANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Maa Pahadwali Rice Mill, Maa Pahadwali Rice Mill, Vs. Ito, Ward, Phulbani Ito, Ward, Phulbani Kamalpur, Po: Telibandha, Kamalpur, Po: Telibandha, Dist: Boudh. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaufm 3720 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik & Subit Sahu, Advs J.M.Pattnaik & Subit Sahu, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

deposits made in the cash credit account standing in State of Bank of India without considering the facts of the case. It was also the submission that the Assessing Officer cannot complete the reassessment

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

cash deposit was found as alleged by the AO, assessee has discharged its duty by providing all the relevant material required for the investigation. Therefore, application of section 68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee

TRILOCHAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

cash deposit in the bank. He submitted that at the first appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support of this claim and the ld CIT(A) had calle of this claim

TRILOCHAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

cash deposit in the bank. He submitted that at the first appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support of this claim and the ld CIT(A) had calle of this claim

TRILOCHAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

cash deposit in the bank. He submitted that at the first appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support of this claim and the ld CIT(A) had calle of this claim

TRILOCHAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

cash deposit in the bank. He submitted that at the first appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support appellate stage, the assessee had filed some additional evidences in support of this claim and the ld CIT(A) had calle of this claim

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

cash deposit and interest were Rs.73,69,368/- i.e. exceeding maximum amount which was not chargeable to income tax. The assessee society has not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 which the assessee was under statutory obligation to file In view of the above facts and circumstances, I have sufficient reason to believe that income

GULLIPALLI RAM PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Gullipalli Gullipalli Ram Ram Prasad, Prasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Offi 1/218/34, 1/218/34, Sri Sri Simhadri S Berhampur Residency, Residency, Chandanpur Chandanp Colony, Colony, Flat Flat No.703, No.703, Gopalapatam, Gopalapatam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan/Gir No. No.Aucoo 7479 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N.Trinath Rao, Ca N.Trinath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/20 025 O R D E R

cash deposit in the bank account. In the first appellate proceedings also, the assessee only filed written submission by stating that the assessee is an unemployed person and had earlier savings to carry on some small business. The explanation of the assessee did not find favour by the ld CIT(A) and consequently, the assessment was upheld. 6. Before

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

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

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening