SURYAKANTA BEHERA,PARADIP vs. ITO WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 April 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that even in cases of non-prosecution, the appeal should be decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 58 days late due to the negligence of their authorized representative. The First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) had disposed of the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether Section 69A was applicable to a salaried individual.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR, Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Hearing: 15/0Pronounced: 15/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Suryakanta Suryakanta Behera, Behera, Panisalia Vs. ITO, Ward Paradeep, Paradeep. ITO, Ward Paradeep, Paradeep. Irrigation Colony, Town Hall Irrigation Colony, Town Hall Road, Jagatsinghpur. Road, Jagatsinghpur. PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.ARHPB 7077 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 15/0 04/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15/0 /04/2024 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), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 17.10.2023 17.10.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10441/2019 Cuttack/10441/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. appeared for the assessee. Since the appeal can be decided in Since the appeal can be decided in the absence of ld AR of the assessee, I proceed to do so. the absence of ld AR of the assessee, I proceed to do so. the absence of ld AR of the assessee, I proceed to do so. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal is time barred by 58 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 58 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 58 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the ation petition supported by affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the ation petition supported by affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulation time period due to the appeal could not be filed within the stipulation time period due to the appeal could not be filed within the stipulation time period due to the P a g e 1 | 3 larches and lapses of the authorized representative appointed for dealing and advising on income tax matters. After going through the condonation petition, I find that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Ld D.R. did not have any objection for condoning the delay. I, therefore, condone the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.

I have considered the submission of ld Sr DR. and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has not pursued his case before the First Appellate Authority with utmost care and diligent which is evident from the fact that although, the Ld.CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee could not file complete details to justify source for cash deposits. At the same time, although, the Ld.CIT(A) has disposed off appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution, but failed to decide the issue on merits with reasoning which is evident from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), where the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO. In my considered view, even in a case where the appeal is disposed off for non-prosecution or ex parte for non-appearance, the appeal should be disposed off on merits on the basis of materials available on record. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the assessee being a salaried person, he is not required to maintain books of account and thereby the provisions of section 69A cannot be attracted. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the issues

P a g e 2 | 3 need to go back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits , and thus, I set aside order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issues to the file of AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the AO and file necessary evidences without seeking any adjournment.

5.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 15/04/2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →