RAMESH CHANDRA NAYAK,ROURKELA vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 103/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 April 2024AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, it held that since a consequential assessment order had already been passed by the Assessing Officer, the appeal against the Section 263 order had become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1035 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's advocate suffering from COVID-19 and subsequent demise, and prior litigation before the High Court. The Principal CIT had passed an order under Section 263 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the appeal against a Section 263 order is maintainable after a consequential assessment order has been passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 24/0Pronounced: 24/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramesh Ramesh Chandra Chandra Nayak, Nayak, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Prop. Prop. Sarada Sarada Enterprises, Enterprises, Nabakrushna Nabakrushna Nagar, Nagar, Rourkela PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.ABFPN 5693 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24/0 04/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.3.2020 passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld Pr. CIT, Sambalpur 31.3.2020 passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld Pr. CIT, Sambalpur 31.3.2020 passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld Pr. CIT, Sambalpur in Appeal No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019 ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026904780(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. 16.

2.

None appeared for the assessee appeared for the assessee and no adjournment petition is filed. and no adjournment petition is filed. Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 4

3.

The appeal is time barred by 1035 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 5.4.2023 supported by affidavit, stating that the appellant had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court challenging the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 and the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on 5.9.2018 and again the assessee had filed an Interlocutory application for modification of the order dated 5.9.2018 of the Hon’ble High Court praying for giving liberty to the appellant to file the appeal and the Hon’ble High Court disposed the petition on 24.10.2019 giving the appellant to file the appeal at the appropriate forum. It was stated that in the meantime, the assessment record was called by the Pr. CIT, Sambalpur and order u/s.263 of the Act was passed on 31.3.2020 and the said order was served on the appellant on 12.4.2020. It was also stated that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time because the advocate conducting the case was suffering from COVID-19 for a long period and expired on 24.10.2021. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period and for which, there was delay of 1035 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was the prayer that the delay of 1035 days may be condoned and the appeal disposed off.

4.

After hearing ld CIT DR and perusing the condition petition supported by affidavit, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the time specified.

P a g e 2 | 4 Therefore, we condone the delay of 1035 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

At the outset, ld CIT DR submitted that in this case consequential order dated 27.7.2021 to the order passed u/s.263 of the Act has been made and in the order u/s.263, three issues had been raised i.e. regarding interest on saving account and interest on fixed deposit, expenditure towards repairs and maintenance and non-deposit of PF and ESI within the stipulated period. In the consequential order, the Assessing Officer has considered the issues and has added the interest on saving account and interest on fixed deposit and other issues were accepted by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that as the consequential order has been passed considering the evidence produced, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 is liable to be dismissed.

6.

We have considered the submission and perused the facts on record as also the consequential assessment order. It is noticed that what has been stated by ld CIT DR is supported by the consequential assessment order passed and only the addition in respect of saving account and fixed deposit has been made by the Assessing Officer and no other addition has been made though suggested by the ld CIT(A) u/s.263 of the Act. As the consequential order has already been passed and the assessee has effectively alternate remedy in respect of such assessment order, the appeal

P a g e 3 | 4 filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act has become infructious and same stands dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2024.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →