What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons. However, to grant another opportunity to substantiate the case, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 426 days due to the assessee's serious medical conditions. The assessee had not cooperated with the assessment proceedings or the CIT(A) despite receiving notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to medical reasons and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Pramod Kumar Modi, Angul vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & B.N.Behera, Advs

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR

Hearing: 29/0Pronounced: 29/0

Assessment Year : 2016-17 Pramod Kumar Modi Pramod Kumar Modi, S/O. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Angul Income Tax Officer, Angul Ghasi Ghasi Ram Ram Modi, Modi, Bazar Bazar Ward, Angul Ward, Angul Pada, Angul Town, Angul. Pada, Angul Town, Angul. PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.ACMPM 7220 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra & B.N.Behera, Advs P.K.Mishra & B.N.Behera, Advs Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/0 08/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/0 /08/2024 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.2.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A), CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10382/2018 2/10382/2018-19 for the assessment year 2016-17.

Shri P.K.Mishra and B.N.Behera P.K.Mishra and B.N.Behera, ld ARs assisted by Ms Layatmika assisted by Ms Layatmika Nath, intern of The Law College, Cuttack Nath, intern of The Law College, Cuttack appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR assisted by Shri Chandra Sekhar assisted by Shri Chandra Sekhar Panda, intern of The Law College, Cuttack Law College, Cuttack represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal is time barred by 426 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 426 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 426 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit alongwith medical certificates, condonation petition supported by affidavit alongwith medical certificates, condonation petition supported by affidavit alongwith medical certificates, stating the reasons stating the reasons that as the assessee was seriously suffered from liver ssessee was seriously suffered from liver P a g e 1 | 3 and kidney related problems alongwith acute diabetes, for which he had undergone medical treatment for a longer period. That it was in this backdrop the appeal could not be filed within the due date. Ld AR also reiterated the submissions made in the condonation application and requested to condone the delay. The facts as enumerated in the petition have not been found to be false. Thus, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings or before the ld CIT(A) though several notices have been issued to the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, so as to grant another opportunity to substantiate the case of the assessee, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2024.

PRAMOD KUMAR MODI,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments