OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans taken by the assessee, it was submitted that these loans were the same amounts which have been treated by the Pr. CIT as being liable for deemed dividend. It was the submission that these loans had been specifically examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of ‘e’ assessment

BHARAT BHUSAN DEO,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Sri Bharat Bhusan Deo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At/Po: Baragadia, Dist-Jajpur Pan No. : Aatpd 6411 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G. Nayak, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 22.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2007- 2008 On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As The Appellate Order Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Most Arbitrarily Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee The Amount Of Rs.29,00,000/- Received As Loan On Different Dates From Friends, Relatives & Staff At The Time Of Constraint Of Funds & Utilized In The Business Of M/S Chaitanya Minerals, A Proprietory Concern Of Shri Bharat Bhusan Deo, For The Running & Survival Of The Business, Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Under Which The Same Was Taken. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Most Arbitrarily Added The Amount Of Rs.29,00,000/-U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act As Income From Undisclosed Source Without Accepting The Fact Of Creditworthiness Of The Persons Giving Loans & The Genuineness Of The Transactions.

76,300/- out of which Rs. 5,72,200/- was paid through cash during the FY 2009-10 and Rs. 4,04,100/- was paid through cheque during the FY 2010-11. The learned assessing officer by misconstruing - the provision of law as is contemplated U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has wrongly assessed the income U/s. 144/254

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

section 68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee and, accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee. 7 7. Ground 2 relates to disallowance of statutory dues

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

68 of the Act. Apparently the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the assessee's explanation regarding the nature and source of the amount. Thus, the transactions between the assessee and VE did not fall within the mischief sought to be remedied by the section. As already pointed out by us, the assessee was also prevented by reasonable cause from

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

68 of the Act. Apparently the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the assessee's explanation regarding the nature and source of the amount. Thus, the transactions between the assessee and VE did not fall within the mischief sought to be remedied by the section. As already pointed out by us, the assessee was also prevented by reasonable cause from

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

76,910 He observed that in response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, reply was received only from one party i.e. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, who denied having any transaction with the assessee. In two more cases, namely (i) Babita Behera and (ii) Nursingha Behera, letters issued u/s.133(6) of the Act came back unserved with postal remarks ‘insufficient address

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

76,468.00 Total: 21,42,479.05 6.1 Ld A.R. submitted that once the sundry creditors have given their confirmations in the ledger account and the purchases are accepted by the AO, the addition of Rs.21,42,479.05 be deleted. Ld A.R. referred to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchan Dass Jain

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

76,505/-, receipt of the advance from the sale of land to the tune of Rs.28,80,000/-, income from house property of Rs.16,95,000/- and brokerage & commission amounting to Rs.4,25,700/-, totaling to 3 Rs.66,77,205/-, had been accepted, however, a balance of cash deposit of Rs.42,32,795/- was not accepted by the AO treating

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

68 of the Act.' The ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi adjudicated on an identical issue in the case of Vidhi Malhotra v /s ITO, Ward-2(S), Faridabad (ITA No. 93/Del/2018 for AY.-2014-15 and Santosh Mendiratta vIs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad (ITA No. 94/Del/2018 for AY.- 2014-15). In both these appeals, the assessee