GODABARISH KARAN,MAYURBHANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARIPADA, BARIPADA

ITA 457/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 June 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the smallness of the disallowance and that the expenses were likely incurred in the relevant year and paid subsequently. In the interest of justice, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,64,152/- shown as sundry creditors and expenses payable in the balance sheet. The assessee argued these were minor expenses paid in the subsequent year.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of minor expenses, paid in the subsequent year, is justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 03/06/2026Pronounced: 03/06/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10213/2017-18 order dated 16/01/2026 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld SR DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

The appeal is time barred by 28 days The assessee has filed the condonation petition stating the reason for not filing the appeal within the time. Looking to the small of delay and reasons giving in the petition, we condone th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →