SABITA DASH,TALCHER vs. ITO WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 899/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1372 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that the assessee had explained the reason for the delay. In the interest of justice, the issues in the quantum appeal (ITA No. 900/2026) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the case on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 899/2026) was also restored to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits. The Tribunal did not decide any specific addition or penalty on merits, as the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sabita Dash, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 899 & 900/CTK/2026) against the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.07.2026. ITA No. 900/2026 challenged the confirmation of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), while ITA No. 899/2026 challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to a delay of 1372 days. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that reasonable cause for the delay was explained. The revenue argued that proper opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to produce required documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1372 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of principles for condonation of delay). 2. Whether the penalty appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) if the quantum appeal is restored (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the consequential effect of restoring the quantum appeal). Assessee's contentions: The impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay without considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee for condonation. The assessee requested condonation of delay and an opportunity to produce relevant facts before the CIT(A). Revenue's contentions: Proper opportunities were allowed, and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: ITA No.900/CTK/2026 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.07.2026 confirming the addition made by the AO. ITA No.899/CTK/2026 has also been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.07.2026 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

2 ITA No.899&900/CTK/2026 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. It was also the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay without considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee for condonation of delay. It was also the submission of the ld. AR that the delay may kindly be condoned and the assessee may kindly be provided one more opportunity to produce all the relevant facts in support of her claim before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. The ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the reasons for delay explained by the assessee in para 2 of its order. Since the appellate order is an ex-parte order and the assessee has explained the reason for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we condone the delay 1372 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding the case of the assessee on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Since we have restored the quantum appeal of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide on merits, therefore, the penalty appeal being ITA No.899/CTK/2026 is also hereby restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).

3 ITA No.899&900/CTK/2026 7. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 5. ववभागीयप्रतततनधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file.

आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपतप्रतत //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →