SANATAN PARIDA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 736/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that substantial justice should take precedence over technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order was passed ex parte because the assessee failed to produce details before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays and technicalities should not bar substantive justice, and parties should be given a fair chance to present their case, especially when the original assessment was ex parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanatan Parida, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds of delay, without adjudicating the matter on merits. The assessment order itself was passed ex parte by the Assessing Officer (AO) as the assessee failed to produce necessary details. The assessee sought an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities? 2. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case on merits before the Assessing Officer, given that the original assessment order was passed ex parte due to the assessee's failure to produce details? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and that the matter should be adjudicated on merits. The assessee also requested an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 29/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, DELHI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2014-15/10376892 dated 08.07.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Shri Deba Prasad Mishra, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay

2 without adjudicating the appeal of the assessee on merits. I

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 →