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.

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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.

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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.

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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.

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

68, 69, 69A, 69B etc is possible even in a case where income is estimated u/s 144 of the IT Act in view of rejection of books u/s 145 (3) of the Act. But the facts of the case cited above and that of the appellant are different, as because in that case there was existence of books accounts which

SATYA NARAYAN PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

69 or section 69B and when the appellant by any clinching evidence, fails to show nature and source of money deposited into his bank account, it should be added as assessee's unexplained income. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below: ''Though section 68

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit Technology (Kiit), Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

section 68 or 69 of the Act, the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the P a g e 3 | 18 Assessment

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

section 69 of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First and foremost condition is there should be an investment and second condition is the assessee could not explain source for said investment. In this case, if you through evidence filed by the assessee including comparative details of amount collected out of sales for financial year

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

69. 8. Further, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 68 as ‘income from other sources’. 14. Ld counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR 509 (SC), wherein, P a g e 18 | 21 ITA No.95/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14 it was held that a discretion has been

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act. These statements were recorded on various dates in some other proceedings

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

69 read with Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed

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

Sections 68, 69, etc. are only rules of evidence incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence. There is further

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

Section 68 or 69 of the IT. Act. (i) The disclosed total income, excluding the interest income, was only

GANESH MILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARANJIA,MAYURBHANJ,ODISHA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALESWAR CIRCLE,BALESWAR

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

69,260 which is 20% expenses debited against the purchase of old gunny bag and the same is liable to be deleted. 3. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private

R.N. SAHOO & OTHERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

68 have been discharged by the assessee by furnishing the relevant evidences. The evidences which were furnished by the assessee were confirmation letters of the partners, copies of I.T.Returns, PAN Nos, and income declared. By furnishing the above, the preliminary onus was discharged by the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that all the partners have owned

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

68,487/- 69,96,381/- 59,90,136/ 69,61,374/- - 2013-14 2014-15 8,18,89,655/- 56,81,850/- 61,41,724/ 61,41,724/- - TOTAL 3,85,30,339/- 3,08,00,0 4,03,74,113/- 42/- 1. Estimation of Net Profit:- As the practice of newspaper advertising was continuing during the year

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

68,487/- 69,96,381/- 59,90,136/ 69,61,374/- - 2013-14 2014-15 8,18,89,655/- 56,81,850/- 61,41,724/ 61,41,724/- - TOTAL 3,85,30,339/- 3,08,00,0 4,03,74,113/- 42/- 1. Estimation of Net Profit:- As the practice of newspaper advertising was continuing during the year

MAKEWAY CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

section 68 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.44,00,000/- in cash from the following persons: “Maeway Consultancy Private Limited Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 Details of Share Capital Introduced during Financial Year 2009-10 AMOUNT NAME