NABANITA CHELL,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

The appeal is time barred by 371 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed a petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 371 days mentioning that due to advice of his engaged Chartered Accountant Shri Mihir Kumar Sahu, revision petition was withdrawn on 08.01.2021 and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by ld. PCIT, Sambalpur, which was filed within few days of the assessment order coming to the knowledge of assessee. After that when the assessee received the appellate order, she approached the Advocate Shri Subash Agarwal to file the appeal before the Tribunal and for preparing the relevant papers and due to that reason, the delay occurred. He prayed before the Bench to condone the delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 371 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee mentioning that the appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause has

On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). He also pleaded that the assessee also filed appeal before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal after the due date of filing of the appeal. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided. He pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of her claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to insufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal within time limit and without going into merit of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee was not in a position to furnish some of the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. But now he requested to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026.