IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA Nos.179 to 182/CTK/2020 (Assessment Years:2009-10 to 2010-11)

DCIT Smt. Indrani Patnaik

2^nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Poorva, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Township, Rourkela, Odisha-

Odisha-768004 769004, (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. ACCPP6164E Assessee by : Shri S.C. Bhadra, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 11.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [the learned CIT (A)](hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT (A)”] dated 20.03.2020, for the AY 2009-10 & 2010-11. The penalties were levied by the ACIT, Rourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016 for A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.

2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approval from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &

181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020 for A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.

A.Y. 2009-10 ITA No. 179/CTK/2020

4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground nos. 1 to 4 is against the quashing of reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act by the ld. CIT (A), thereby quashing the assessment framed by the ld. AO.

4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business of mining. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.09.2009, declaring total income of ₹117,50,44,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) scheme and notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The ld. AO framed the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2016, determining the total income at ₹126,46,86,020/-, which was reduced by the ld. CIT (A) to ₹118,28,11,470/-. Subsequently, the Justice M.B. Shah Commission on illegal mining of Iron and Manganese Ore pointed out the assessee. It was pointed out that the discrepancy between the figure of production of Iron Ore in the books of account of the assessee and the figure submitted to Justice M.B. shah commission by the directorate of Mining & Geology. The ld. AO formed a reason to belief that assessee had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in support of these observations of Justice M/B. Shah Commission. The ld. AO held that there was an underreporting of

1,86,500 Metric Tons of Iron and Ore had escaped assessment in the A.Y. 2009-10. Accordingly, the ld. AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148 dated 22.10.2014, served upon the assessee, which was complied with. The ld. AO made an addition of ₹93,25,00,000/- on account of suppressed production of Iron Ore and further disallowed expenses u/s 37 of the Act to the extent of ₹129,42,25,780/- by treating them as illegal expenses.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A).

4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) held the reopening to be nullity and bad in law after obtaining the submission and contention of the assessee by observing and holding as under:-

“I have perused the facts of the case and have examined the detailed submissions of the assessee. The assessment record of the assessee for AY.- 2009-10 was also requisitioned from the office of the DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela and was inspected. Now, the exercise of the re