What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the duplicate appeal as infructuous. The second appeal was dismissed as defective because the penalty order was not filed, and the assessee failed to cure the defects despite opportunities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard two appeals filed by the assessee. One appeal was a duplicate filing, and the other was dismissed due to defects and non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when it is a duplicate filing or when there are un-cured defects and non-compliance by the assessee.

Baratam Srikanth, Parlakhemundi vs DCIT | s.271AAC1 | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR

Hearing: 25/05/2026Pronounced: 25/05/2026

1 ITA No.109 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.65/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.109 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.65/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baratam Srikantha, Baratam Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Shopping Mill, Palace street, Bhubaneswar Paralakhemundi bus stand, S.O. Paralakhemundi PAN/GIR No. AALOPS 1962 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 25/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench The appeal in ITA No.109/CTK/2026 is a duplicate filing. Therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. 2. ITA No.65/CTC/2026 is an appeal filed against the penalty order levied by the AO u/s.271AAC1 of the Act and the penalty order has not been filed, which is also exparte before the ld CIT(A). Defect notice has been issued and the defect has not been cured. Various opportunities were provided to the assessee to cure the defect

2 ITA No.109 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.65/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

but there was no response. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as defective. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 25/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Baratam Srikantha, Baratam Shopping Mill, Palace street, Paralakhemundi bus stand, S.O. Paralakhemundi

The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy// Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

BARATAM SRIKANTH,PARLAKHEMUNDI vs. DCIT, CICLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments