Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack
Narayan Pattanayak,Puri vs Ito, Puri on 19 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.674 & 699/CTK/2025
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Narayan Pattanayak ITO
Tiadi Sahi, Puri Town, Puri, Vs Puri, Puri, Odisha-752001,
Puri, Odisha-752001,
PAN: ABDPP0754A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri P.K. Mishra, AR
Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborthy, DR
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2026
ORDER
PER BENCH:
ITA No.674/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee againstthe order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in appeal no.NFAC/2013-14/10171982 dated 28.09.2025 for assessment year 2014-15 in quantum assessment and ITA No.699/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in appeal no.NFAC/2013-14/10183827 dated 04.10.2025 for assessment year 2014-15 against confirmation of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15
2. Shri P. K. Mishra, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborthy, DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an employee of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak who was running a IMFL under the named and styled as 'M/s New Wine House'. It was the submission that Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak is nearly 86 years old aged in 2016. It was the submission that Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak was unable to do routine activities and she was depending upon her employee for carrying the business. It was the submission that consequently, the transactions were done through the bank account of the assessee and the payments were also made from the same account. It was the submission that during the impugned assessment year, transactions of nearly Rs.3.4 crores were done in the bank account of the assessee and from the said bank account, the assessee had made payments to Odisha State Beverages Corporation. It was the submission that the entire transactions had been disclosed in the hands of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak, the licence holder and the owner of IMFL wine shop. The ld. AR submitted that admittedly the assessee has not filed its return of income and the assessment had been completed u/s 144 of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), all the evidences were produced and the ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer which was shown at pages 1 to 18 of the which reads as follows:
2ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 3 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 4 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 5 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 6 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 7 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 8 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 9 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 10 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 11 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 12 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 13 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 14 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 15 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 16 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 17 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 18 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 19 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 3.1 It was the submission that in the remand proceedings, the assessee had produced all the evidences before the Assessing Officer and consequently, the Assessing Officer in para 2.5 of his remand report admitted that DD of an amount of Rs.1,04,22900/- was paid to Odisha State Beverages Corporation through DD and also another amount of Rs.2,36,33,820/- was also DD payments to Odisha State Beverages Corporation. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer has also admitted that the sequence of facts indicates that during the impugned year, the assessee was acted on behalf of the owner of business IMFL i.e. Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings has categorically given a findings that an amount of Rs.3,05,120/- remained unexplained. The ld. AR further drew our attention to pages 18 to 20 of the paper-book which is a copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) in the case of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak and the assessment has been completed making minor additions. The copy of the assessment order in the case of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak reads as follows:20
ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 21 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 22 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 23 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 3.2 It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A), after receiving the remand report in para-i of page 11 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order, did not accept the report of the Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer could have done better enquiry and not botched it up. It was the submission that the details of the bank account of the assessee had been examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has found that the amounts in the bank account were used for making payments to Odisha State Beverages Corporation through DD. The details of the payment to Odisha State Beverages Corporation have also been examined in the hands of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has brought out further issues which have no connection or relation to the issues in the appeal and it was very much available to the ld. CIT(A) to call for a further remand report. It was the submission that that this has not been done and without considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer but disregarding the same has confirmed the addition. It was prayed that the additions as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted in the interest of justice.
4. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the issues raised by the ld.
CIT(A) in pages 10 & 11 of his order has not been replied in the remand report or by the assessee. It was submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that transactions in the bank account of the assessee actually related to Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer should be directed to verify the same in respect of accounts of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. It was prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld.
24ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15
5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the transactions clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has identified two bank accounts of the assessee wherein cash has been deposited. Admittedly, the assessee did not respond in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee has provided all the details in the remand proceedings when the matter was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer admittedly has examined the issues in the remand proceedings and has given a details remand report. The Assessing Officer has also given a specific findings in the remand report that there is a difference of Rs.3,05,120/- which remained unexplained in respect bank account of the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order in the case of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak shows that there have been various issues examined but the said order is not a detailed order. It does not talk of examining the bank accounts maintained by the assessee and having been used for the business of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. The Assessing Officer only mentioned that Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak has produced stock register, purchase register and sales register. Admittedly, it could be the Assessing Officer of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak would have considered the bank accounts of the assessee herein, but that does not come out in the assessment order of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. However, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer of the assessee admits that the assessee is acting on behalf of the owner i.e. Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak. This being so, as it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings has categorically found that the amounts which have been deposited in two bank accounts of the assessee have been used specifically for purchasing DDs for payments to Odisha State Beverages Corporation for and on behalf of business of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak, the additions as made by the Assessing 25 ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025 Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15 Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted to the extent of Rs.1,04,22,900/- + Rs.2,36,33,820/-. The balance amount stands confirmed in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is also permitted to examine the accounts of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak to verify these payments have been actually shown in the account of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak in accordance with law. This direction is not to be considered as a direction to reopen the assessment of Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak in so far as Smt. Sailabala Pattanayak is not the assessee before us. Thus, ITA No.674/CTK/2025 is allowed.
6. In respect of ITA No.699/CTK/2025, as we have deleted the addition substantially, the issues in this appeal with regard to the levy of penalty is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the penalty to the extent of the addition if any that remains after giving effect of this decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.674/CTK/2025. To this extent, the appeal in ITA No.699/CTK/2025 stands allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, ITA No.674/CTK/2025 stands partly allowed and ITA No.699/CTK/2025 stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 19th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan]
लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member
Dated: 19.03.2026.
RS
26
ITA No.674&699/CTK/2025
Narayan Pattanayak; AY 2014-15
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,
5. CIT(DR),
//True copy//
By order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS
27