MANORANJAN SAHOO,JAGANNATH PRASAD vs. ITO, WARD KHURDA, KHURDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 539/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT due to the death of the assessee's father. It also decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(Appeals) to ensure natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals before the ITAT which were time-barred. The assessee sought condonation of delay citing the death of his father and non-receipt of appellate orders. The CIT(Appeals) had previously dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the ITAT and CIT(Appeals) should be condoned due to sufficient cause. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present his case on merits after the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-CUTTAK ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026
ITA No. 540/CTK/2026
I.T.A. No. 539/CTK/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 539/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 540/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Manoranjan Sahoo IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-CUTTAK ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 538/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 539/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 540/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Manoranjan Sahoo,………………….…….……....Appellant Jagannath Prasad, Madhyakhanda, Nayagarh, Nayagarh-752093, Odisha [PAN:DHRPS8568C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-Khurda, Income Tax Office, Sri Ram Nagar, Near Telephone Bhawan, Khurda-752055, Odisha Appearances by: Shri N.R. Biswal, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: May 22, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: May 22, 2026 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present three appeals bearing ITA Nos. 538/CTK/2026, 539/CTK/2026 & 540/CTK/2026 are directed at the instance of 1

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 539/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 540/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Manoranjan Sahoo assessee against the orders of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 15.12.2025 passed for Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively.

2.

The appeals bearing ITA Nos. 538/CTK/2026, 539/CTK/2026 & 540/CTK/2026 are time barred by 68 days each in filing the appeals by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed condonation petition as well as an affidavit dated 07.05.2026 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 68 days each in respect of all the appeals mentioning that due to death of his father Late Biswanath Sahoo dated 21.02.2026 and non-receipt of the appellate order, the appeals could not be filed in time. He also stated that non-filing of appeals before the Tribunal within the stipulated period of time was not at all intentional. He prayed before the Bench to condone the delay for not filing the appeals in time.

3.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeals within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 68 days in respect of each of the appeals. Hence the delays in filing the three appeals within time are condoned.

4.

It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the appeals bearing ITA Nos. 538/CTK/2026, 539/CTK/2026 and 540/CTK/2026 before the ld. CIT(Appeals) are time barred by 322 2

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 539/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 540/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Manoranjan Sahoo days, 481 days and 86 days respectively. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee being time-barred by mentioning that the determination of the timeliness of the petition is important and it ought to be within the period prescribed by law as a jurisdictional requirement. As the assessee did not file the appeals within due date of the prescribed time limit and not submitting any proof of sufficient cause which is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court under section 5, he dismissed the appeals of assessee. The ld. Counsel prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and to give one opportunity to substantiate his case and to decide it afresh on merit.

5.

On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to file appeals before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to non-filing appeals within due date of the prescribed time limit. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

6.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee simply by mentioning that the determination of the timeliness of the petition is important and it ought to be within the period 3

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 539/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 540/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Manoranjan Sahoo prescribed by law as a jurisdictional requirement. 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 revenue Authorities and requested to give one opportunity to substantiate his case and to decide the appeals afresh on merit. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that it is fit cases to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeals without any inference on the observations of earlier orders passed by him. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 22nd day of May, 2026

ITA No. 538/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 539/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2018-2019) ITA No. 540/CTK/2026 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Manoranjan Sahoo

Copies to :(1) Manoranjan Sahoo, Jagannath Prasad, Madhyakhanda, Nayagarh, Nayagarh-752093, Odisha (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-Khurda, Income Tax Office, Sri Ram Nagar, Near Telephone Bhawan, Khurda-752055, Odisha (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →