TIRUPATI PRASAD SAHU,RAYAGADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAYAGADA WARD

Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Charan Dass, Sr.DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also CIT(A) has also recognized that there was a confusion in regard to recognized that there was a confusion in regard to P a g e 1 | 3 mentioning of date of the order being 22.7.2022 and 22.9.2022. The reasons given for the delay was that the assessee did not receive the order of the Assessing Officer in time. Ld CIT(A) has also recognized that the ITBA system shows that the order u/s.154 of the Act is dated 27.9.2022 and was served through e-mail of the assessee. It was the submission that the issue is in regard to claim of depreciation. It was the submission that in any case even the depreciation is not claimed by the assessee, the depreciation is liable to be allowed as per the statute itself whether the assessee claims or not. It was the submission that on mere technicality, on appeal before the ld CIT(A), substantial justice should not be denied.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts in the present case, we are seized of many cases where assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email as many of these orders are going to span folders. In any case, there is a delay of 145 days. This being so, considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that the explanation is a possible explanation and consequently, we condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We are not giving any findings on merits of the case insofar as the ld CIT(A) has not given any findings on merits. This being so, we restore the issue in P a g e 2 | 3 the appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/06/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Tirupati Prasad Sahu, Rayagada 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Rayagada 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Berhampur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order