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.

96 ITR 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

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.

96 ITR 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

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.

96 ITR 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

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.

96 ITR 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

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

96,000/-, income from tuitions of Rs. 54,200/- and exempt capital gain of Rs. 13,43,698/-. In the statements of capital gain, it is seen that the capital gain has arisen from treading in the following scripts. Name of the Date of QNTY SALE Date of PUR NET TOTAL company sale SOLD RATE purchase RATE GAIN Sudama

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

96,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Here, the AO has invoked wrong section for making the addition which is a curable defect. The addition as it has been made, should have been made under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

96,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Here, the AO has invoked wrong section for making the addition which is a curable defect. The addition as it has been made, should have been made under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

96,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Here, the AO has invoked wrong section for making the addition which is a curable defect. The addition as it has been made, should have been made under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

96,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Here, the AO has invoked wrong section for making the addition which is a curable defect. The addition as it has been made, should have been made under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

96,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Here, the AO has invoked wrong section for making the addition which is a curable defect. The addition as it has been made, should have been made under section 68

G R C GARMENTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,NANDI SAHI, BUXI BAZAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), CUTTACK , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHHAK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 383/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Grc Garments Partnership Firm,….…….,…Appellant Cuttack Sadar, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-753001, Odisha [Pan:Aaefg7391N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(1), Cuttack, Tulasipur, Cuttack-753008, Odisha Appearances By: Shri Diganta Das, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

96,250/- as unsecured loan to the income of the assessee as per the provision of section 68 of the Act. As per reply

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

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

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

96 to 102 of the Paper Book In the above case, it was held that when assessee has no intension to violate provision & the cash transaction between two parties are genuine the penalty u/s 271D is deleted. Various cases cited in the said judgment are: CIT vs. Maherwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria

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

96 to 102 of the Paper Book In the above case, it was held that when assessee has no intension to violate provision & the cash transaction between two parties are genuine the penalty u/s 271D is deleted. Various cases cited in the said judgment are: CIT vs. Maherwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

68,27,315.48 From the above recasted balance sheet, It is seen that the liabilities side of the balance sheet is less by Rs.1,83,89,574.48 P a g e 4 | 18 ITA No 481/CT K/ 2017 C.O. No. 42/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 201 3 than the assets side which represents the undisclosed investments

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India