MOHAN ENTERPRISES,DANAGADI vs. THE I.T.O, JAJPUR WARD JAJPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JAJPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 159/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 May 2026AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were reasonable and plausible, and consequently, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to furnish all relevant details before the Assessing Officer, as indicated by a perusal of the Assessing Officer's order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to grant an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on the merits of the additions made by the AO, as the matter was being remanded for fresh consideration. The ratio of the decision is that if an appeal is dismissed by the lower appellate authority solely on limitation without proper consideration of the condonation petition, and if there are arguable issues on merits, the appellate tribunal may restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohan Enterprises, filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 42 days. The original assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making additions of Rs. 42,72,650 for disallowance of repair & maintenance and Rs. 62,33,976 for disallowance of service tax payment, totaling Rs. 1,21,67,236. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without considering the merits, and that the AO passed the assessment order without verifying audited accounts and written submissions. The assessee also stated that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 287 days, reasons for which were provided in Form 35, and that medical documents supporting the delay were available.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's submissions regarding the reasons for the delay. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the case, particularly when the assessment order was allegedly passed ex-parte without proper verification of accounts and submissions. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to reasons that were reasonable and plausible, including the unavailability of the conducting counsel due to illness, supported by medical advice. The assessee had filed a delay condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with an affidavit. - The assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) was ex-parte as it was passed without verifying the audited accounts and written submissions filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the case or the delay condonation petition elaborately. - The assessee prayed for the appeal to be remanded back to the AO for re-adjudication and detailed examination of accounts and documents. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue, through the learned Sr. DR, vehemently supported the order of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.159/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohan Enterprises ITO, Ward-Jajpur, Jajpur

At- Danagadi, P.O.- Vs Managobindapur, Jajpur, Odisha-755026

(PAN: AAOFM 5443 K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in appeal no. CIT(A), Cuttack/10134/2017-18 dated 07.10.2025.

2.

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 42 days. In support of the delay, the assessee filed the following submissions:

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

3.1 Considering the above, the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) are found to be reasonable and plausible. Consequently, the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) stands condoned.

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the assessee has failed to furnish all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Kolkata, the 20th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 20.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.159/CTK/2026

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →