M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

unexplained cash credit in respect of the sales. The ld. Pr.CIT(OSD) further drew our attention to the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. P. Sheth, reported in 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the relevant portion of the said citations in his order

BASUKINATH ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained cash credit by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the time limit of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act with reference to the original return filed by the assessee on 29.9.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 and on 27.9.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13, respectively expired

P RAMA RAO,NAWARANGPUR vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri C.M.Garg(Through : Video Conferencing) P.Rama Rao, Vs Cit, Bhubaneswar Prop. Of M/S Om Traders, At-Pathana Street, Po-Nawarangpur, Dist-Nawarangpur-764059 Pan No. : (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Jagamohan Pattanaik, Adv. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 31.03.2004. 2. We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides & Perused The Relevant Record Of The Tribunal Including The Paper Book Filed By The Assessee Spread Over 77 Pages Along With The Written Submissions Filed On 03.01.2022. 3. Replying To The Above, Ld. Cit-Dr Also Filed Written Submissions & Copies Of The Case Laws/Judgments/Orders In Support Of The Stand Of The Revenue.

reassess on the face of the ratio decendai of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa after place reliance in the case of S.S.Rathore v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Orissa Oil Industries Ltd, reported in 1992 (193) ITR page-183 (Copy enclosed). Thus

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1. Out of fund transfer of Rs.5,18,62,600/-, major payments were made to the following parties: Sl.No. Name of the party Amount in Rs. 1. Raghunath Mohapatra 50,00,000 2. Ashok Kumar Mahakud 80,00,000 3. Ranjit Kumar Barik

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that

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 proceedings, the AO vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 17.11.2021 has specifically asked about the details of bank account of Shri Mukesh Sharma and Shri Paras

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL,SUNDARGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal in the case of Mahesh

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am It(Ss)A No.117-119/Ctk/2018 ( Assessment Years :2011-2012 To 2013-2014) Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.146&147/Ctk/2018 (Assessment Years :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Bhubaneswar Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.44/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Sanju Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Aavpa 4328 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: In The Above Captioned Seven Appeals, Five Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessees & Two Appeals Have 2 It(Ss)A Nos.44/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.117-119/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.146&147/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.382/Ctk/2018 Been Filed By The Department Which Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.01.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively.

credit of investment received back from M/s Bhaskar Steel of a sum of Rs. 1,05,08,330/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and allowing the said amount as set-off against assessee's investments made during the year in Mls Improve Traders P. Ltd. Hence, the addition needs to be reduced by Rs. 1,05,08,330/- for which necessary

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

unexplained income u/s 69A without considering the fact that the detailed explanation/ submission relates to said issue were filed before the Id. AO, CIT(A) and without considering the remand report and rejoinder The Ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the submission filed physically before the Ld AO and in e- filling portal and e-mail. However

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

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

credit of Rs. 10.96 lakhs is concerned, it is admitted that the appellant has placed on record confirmations in assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry thereon and accepted the fact on its face value. This was to be termed as a case of only half-hearted enquiry as no definite conclusion

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

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the assessee could not furnish the return of income and furnish submission regarding the credit entries in the bank accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, making addition of Rs.87,99,924/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings

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