KALPANA SAHOO,LAXMINARAYANPUR vs. I.T.O. KENDRAPARA WARD, KENDRAPARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 330/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 January 2024AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order, directing the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 165 days late due to the assessee suffering from paralysis. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee, and the original assessment was also ex-parte under Section 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions is valid, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, ‘SMC’CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Hearing: 4.1.2024Pronounced: 4.1.2024

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of hearing: 4.1.2024 Date of pronouncement: 4.1.2024 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.3.2023 of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10163/2016-17 for the assessment year 2013-14 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice issued to the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

The appeal is time barred by 165 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition14.11.2023 supported by an affidavit stating that as she was suffering from paralysis due to brain stroke during the month of January, 2023, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period and there was no malafide intention for the delay in filing the appeal. It was the prayer that the delay be condoned and the appeal be disposed off on merits. Ld Sr DR did not have serious objection to the condonation 1 petition. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 165 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal of the assessee after hearing ld Sr DR in the absence of ld AR of the assessee.

4.

I have heard ld Sr DR and perused the material on record. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that ld CIT(A) passed the impugned order exparte without hearing the assessee. It is also seen that the assessment has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act due to non-cooperation of the assessee. In the grounds of appeal

, the assessee has stated that even though several annexures were filed before the ld CIT(A), same were ignored and the appeal has been disposed of on account of non- compliance by the assessee. In view of above, as the required documents are not considered by the ld CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal and also the assessment has been passed u/s.144, in the interest of natural justice, I deem it fit to restore the issues to the file of the AO for passing fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing officer for early completion of the assessment order.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →