SURESH KUMAR DIVAKAR,SAMBALPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.43/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Suresh Kumar Divakar, Vs Acit,Circle-1(1), Sambalpur 3Rd Floor, Paradise Chamber, Budharaja, Sambalpur Pan No. :Agupd 1872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Appeal Is Against Penalty Levied By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That Against The Quantum Assessment, The Assessee Had Filed An Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Tribunal Vide Its Order Dated 26.06.2023, Passed In Ita No.129/Ctk/2022 In Assessee’S Own Case Has Quashed The Reassessment Proceedings. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Penalty Proceedings Should Also Be Quashed. 3. In Reply Ld. Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Ao & Ld.Cit(A).

penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that against the quantum assessment, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.06.2023, passed in ITA No.129/CTK/2022 in assessee’s own case has quashed the reassessment

LATE SOUMYA RANJAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO-WARD-2(2),BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.369 To 372 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessment Year 14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), 2(1), Bank,190/702, /702, Kokila Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Residency, Ananta Ananta Bihar, Bihar, Airport Area Post Area Post Office, Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Aroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 024

reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.369 To 372 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessment Year 14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), 2(1), Bank,190/702, /702, Kokila Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Residency, Ananta Ananta Bihar, Bihar, Airport Area Post Area Post Office, Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Aroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 024

reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.369 To 372 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessment Year 14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), 2(1), Bank,190/702, /702, Kokila Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Residency, Ananta Ananta Bihar, Bihar, Airport Area Post Area Post Office, Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Aroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 024

reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.369 To 372 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessment Year 14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), 2(1), Bank,190/702, /702, Kokila Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Residency, Ananta Ananta Bihar, Bihar, Airport Area Post Area Post Office, Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Aroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 024

reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.369 To 372 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessment Year 14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), 2(1), Bank,190/702, /702, Kokila Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Residency, Ananta Ananta Bihar, Bihar, Airport Area Post Area Post Office, Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Aroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9/20 024

reassessment proceedings. It was the submission that in the penalty proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee

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

penalty appeal for AY 2014-2015 was deleted as the quantum appeal was being restored.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 139(1)", "Section 148", "Section 142(1)", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 133(6)"], "issues": "Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the source of bank deposits, and whether the reassessment

MARUTI TRADING CO,JAGAATSINGHPUR vs. ITO WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

penalty by rejecting the claim of the assessee and the various case laws submitted by the assessee on this issue. Ld AR placed before me a copy of the reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

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

penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment

S S BRAHMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In ground No.1 & 2, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the ld. Pr.CIT in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act on the premise that the reassessment

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

penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. It was also further clarified by the ld. Sr. DR that after the original assessment order the assessment had been reopened and the reassessment

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

penalty in cases of under- reporting and misreporting of income.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Coming back to present appeal we observed that, the Ld. AO after having clearly analysed facts and circumstances of the case has dejectedly failed to identify or determined and then communicate either through reassessment