KRUSHNA PRASAD MOHANTY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding exclusion of period during the pandemic. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 167 days. The assessee attributed this delay to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and illness of a family member.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.03.2023, passed in DIN & Oder No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050056853(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of AO without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was also submitted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 167 days in filing the appeal. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was caused due to lockdown during the period of pandemic COVID-19. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the delay may be condoned and the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to furnish all the evidences for disposal of the appeal.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed as is evident from the impugned order. It was submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the impugned order it is found that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. During the course of hearing ld. AR drew our attention to the application dated 27.06.2020 filed before the ld. CIT(A) regarding condonation of delay, wherein it has been mentioned that due to the illness of family member, the assessee could not get time and also lockdown during the COVID-19 overcame the time limit to file the appeal in prescribed time limit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 had taken Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the period from 15.3.2020 to 2.10.2021 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the difficulties during the pre-COVID period and the principles of reasonable approach as has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also on account of the fact that the affidavit filed by the assessee is not shown to 167 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. We also observe that the ld CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also allowed the assessee to furnish the evidences, as required for consideration of the facts in the appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal is set aside and restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026