GANESH SABJEE BHANDAR,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,ANGUL, ANGUL

ITA 843/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganesh Sabjee Bhandar, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 841, 842 & 843/CTK/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench. These appeals were against orders passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. Specifically, ITA No. 841/CTK/2026 concerned a penalty levied under Section 271B for AY 2019-2020. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to delays. The ITAT noted that the appeals before it were also delayed by varying periods. The assessee sought condonation of these delays, and the revenue did not object. The ITAT admitted the appeals for hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 should be condoned, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee requested condonation of delay and a further opportunity to produce relevant facts before the Assessing Officer (AO). Revenue's Contention: Proper opportunities were provided, but the assessee failed to produce required documents. If the matters are restored to the AO, a cost should be imposed on the assessee for non-compliance. 2. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271B for AY 2019-2020 should survive, given the restoration of the quantum appeal. (Question of law, turning on the consequential effect of quantum appeal restoration on penalty proceedings).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 08/10/2026Pronounced: 08/10/2026

Per Bench: ITA Nos.842&843/CTK/2026 have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 22/05/2026 & 26/09/2025 for the assessment years 2019-2020 & 2020- 2021. ITA No.841/CTK/2026 filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 26/09/2025 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. Shri Narahari Swain, Shri

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.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →