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.

148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income

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.

148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income

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.

148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income

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

148", "Section 142(1)", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 133(6)"], "issues

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bombay), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that as the notice itself does not indicate the approximate amount of income, which the Assessing Officer has reason to believe has escaped assessment nor does it quantify the extent to which the share premium received was in excess of intrinsic value, which has escaped assessment had held

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bombay), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that as the notice itself does not indicate the approximate amount of income, which the Assessing Officer has reason to believe has escaped assessment nor does it quantify the extent to which the share premium received was in excess of intrinsic value, which has escaped assessment had held

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

68 or not.... Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein, it was stated that bank statement is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden. Regarding the failure to accord

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

148 by the Assessing Officer". Hence this decision was held to be squarely applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case. d) Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ipca limited vs. DCIT (251 ITR 420) wherein it was held relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High

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

section 148 was issued because assessee had not filed any return of income for assessment year 2003-04 and later years. The assessments were completed later on. This becomes clear from the assessment orders filed at pages 61 to 68

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

section 148 was issued because assessee had not filed any return of income for assessment year 2003-04 and later years. The assessments were completed later on. This becomes clear from the assessment orders filed at pages 61 to 68

CHHABI LATA SAHU,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

148 dated 16.07.2014. It was the submission that the reopening is being proposed beyond the period of four years and there is requirement that there should be fresh material and the assessee has not fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment. It was the submission that on perusal of the reasons recorded it clearly shows

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca 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

148(1) of the Act is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been a service of notice which is a condition precedent to making an order of assessment. The Supreme Court further held that the requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued and that service under

M/S BERHAMPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. ITO, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,906/- plus Rs.70,270/- plus Rs.18,823/-) in the above manner chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961.” 22. Ld counsel submitted that since no return of income was filed in response to said notice, again another notice on 11.7.2013 was issued as called for u/s.148

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

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

Section 139(1) for AY 2014-15 could not be filed due to management disturbances. Notice U/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 was issued to the assessee alleging that the return of income for the impugned AY has not been filed by the assessee though there are credits of Rs. Rs. 11,73,40,969/-in the bank accounts

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, W1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

Section 139(1) for AY 2014-15 could not be filed due to management disturbances. Notice U/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 was issued to the assessee alleging that the return of income for the impugned AY has not been filed by the assessee though there are credits of Rs. Rs. 11,73,40,969/-in the bank accounts

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified