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

unexplained money of appellant bank and made addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the deposits of demonetized notes were collected by the assessee bank from its members and, therefore, same is not hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act nor by 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

unexplained money of appellant bank and made addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the deposits of demonetized notes were collected by the assessee bank from its members and, therefore, same is not hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act nor by 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

unexplained money of appellant bank and made addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the deposits of demonetized notes were collected by the assessee bank from its members and, therefore, same is not hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act nor by 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

unexplained money of appellant bank and made addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the deposits of demonetized notes were collected by the assessee bank from its members and, therefore, same is not hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act nor by 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

unexplained money of appellant bank and made addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the deposits of demonetized notes were collected by the assessee bank from its members and, therefore, same is not hit by the provisions of section 69A of the Act nor by Section 68

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

money to assessee's taxable income as unexplained deposits - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of revenue] (vi) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339(Delhi). Section 68

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

unexplained cash credit. 19. Law casts an obligation on the the assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the creditors and the credit- worthiness of the creditor, to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer, so as to discharge the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act. It is for the assessee to prove

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

unexplained cash or unaccounted deposit. This section is definitely not intended to penalize genuine transactions where no tax evasion is involved. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or set of sections in some modern statutes are regarded as preambles" to these sections. This view was approved by Farewel L.J. in Fletcher vs. Birkenhead Corporation

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

unexplained cash or unaccounted deposit. This section is definitely not intended to penalize genuine transactions where no tax evasion is involved. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or set of sections in some modern statutes are regarded as preambles" to these sections. This view was approved by Farewel L.J. in Fletcher vs. Birkenhead Corporation

M/S. GOPALPUR PORTS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

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.97/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Gopalpur Ports Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle-(2), Cuttack Osl Tower, Link Road, Cuttack स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aaccg 6721 F (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.B.Sahu, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeal) In It Appeal No. 0622/2011-12 Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unsustainable In Law. 2. That The Impugned Addition Of Rs.4,31,15,000/- Representing Share Application Money Of M/S On Track Trading Ltd Purportedly Under Section 68 Of The It Act Is Illegal & Arbitrary. 3. That The Appellant Having Submitted Relevant Evidences With Regard To The Amount Invested By The Said Investing Foreign Company, It Is Not Lawful & Proper To Confirm Addition On The Ground Of Its Want Of Proof Of Credit Worthiness Of The Said Investing Company Which Is Illegal & Arbitrary. 4. That Non Consideration Of The Application Of The Proviso To Section 68 Of The It Act Effective From 01.04.2013 Relied Upon By The Appellant Was Not Considered By Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Inconsistent With The Relevant Statutory Provisions.

section 68 of the IT Act effective from 01.04.2013 relied upon by the appellant was not considered by Ld. CIT (Appeal) is inconsistent with the relevant statutory provisions. Further, ld. AR submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) in Sumati Dayal V/s- CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT V/s-

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

unexplained. In the instant case, it was claimed by the assessee that the entire sales made by her are recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax. The sole reason for both AO and CIT(A) for making / sustaining the addition under section 69A of the Act was that subsequent to 08.11.2016, the SBNs were not legal tender

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

unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the lenders by either furnishing their PAN number or Income-tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

money in the grab of long term capital gain. He also relied upon by various judgments relied on by the Id CIT(A) at the time of confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee on this score. 7. In rejoinder, the Id AR of the assessee filed the copies of the assessment order and appellate orders passed

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.

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The action of the AO is therefore sustained.” 5. Ld.AR filed the paper book containing page Nos.1 to 102 and also filed the written submissions, which read as under :- That the instant appeal has been preferred "against the impugned and erroneous order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack

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

unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Whereas the provisions of section 69 of the Act intended to be applied to a case where the assessee had made an investment which does not form part of his declared income in the relevant year and he is unable to offer any explanation about the nature and source of such investment

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act clearly specifies that any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, may be charged to income-tax as the income of the taxpayer