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

unexplained investment made in the construction P a g e 20 | 28 Assessment Year : 2012-13 of Gouri Shankar Godown has been decided in favour of the assessee directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.11,40,920/-, whereas ground No.4 has been dismissed confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,700/-. 28. In para 3.1, the ld. PR.CIT

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

unexplained investment in land which has been approved by the Ld. JCIT perfunctorily, when Rs.6,08,50,000/- was not pertaining to the period of assessment which was clearly mentioned and apparent from the seized documents identified as MFT-51 and consequently also deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the very same ground. The Deptt. was pleased to accept

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

unexplained investment in land which has been approved by the Ld. JCIT perfunctorily, when Rs.6,08,50,000/- was not pertaining to the period of assessment which was clearly mentioned and apparent from the seized documents identified as MFT-51 and consequently also deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the very same ground. The Deptt. was pleased to accept

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.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

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.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

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.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

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.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

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

OMM DHANA LAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. PCIT, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Omm Dhanalaxmi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Jewellers, Bazar Chowk, Main Road, Angul-759122 Pan/Gir No.Aagfd 8791 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 30.3.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) That The Ld. Pr Cit Bhubaneswar Has Erred In Law By Utilizing Section 263 For Directing The Assessing Officer To Do Necessary Verification As Per The Order Of Hon'Ble Itat Cuttack Bench Vide Order Dated 01-10-2019 Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Provisions Of 263 Does Not Allow To Proceed For A Matter Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Hence, The Order Passed Us 263 Needs To Be Quashed In To.

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for the reason that the notice issued u/s 133(6) to the concerned loan creditor was returned back unserved by the postal authority. The assessee had provided the documents as required by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, which have not been doubted by the authorities below. Merely because notice u/s.133

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

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

investment respectively as stated by him. Shri Jami Siva Sai could not furnish any corroborative evidence for his assertion that amount of Rs.50 lakhs were received from DORB customers and Rs.25 lakhs was received from Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. There was no plausible explanation as to why the names of DORB customers and Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

investment respectively as stated by him. Shri Jami Siva Sai could not furnish any corroborative evidence for his assertion that amount of Rs.50 lakhs were received from DORB customers and Rs.25 lakhs was received from Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. There was no plausible explanation as to why the names of DORB customers and Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

investment respectively as stated by him. Shri Jami Siva Sai could not furnish any corroborative evidence for his assertion that amount of Rs.50 lakhs were received from DORB customers and Rs.25 lakhs was received from Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. There was no plausible explanation as to why the names of DORB customers and Shri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat

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

unexplained income for the year in which the asset (deposit) is found (made), i.e., the current year. It is only for the current year that, by virtue of the information in the possession of the Revenue of the cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, leads to the inference of the assessee being the owner of the said sums