REBATI DANDAPAT,MANDIR PADA, NUAPADA, ODHISA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANI PATNA WARDA, BHAWANIPATNA
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-2021. The appeal was delayed by 106 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The authorized representative of the assessee, a Chartered Accountant, appeared in virtual hearing not in prescribed uniform, hence was not heard.
Held
The tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents and failed to produce evidence required by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. To provide justice, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal of the assessee is to be admitted considering the delay and the non-compliance by the authorized representative? Whether the issues deserve to be restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 24/04/2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 106 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 106
2 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
The Authorized Representative of the assessee, Mr. Vijay Gupta, being a Chartered Accountant, who appeared in the virtual hearing, was not in uniform as prescribed in the SOP for appearing in the virtual hearing. Accordingly, he was not heard.
As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
3
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 05/12/2025. (राजेश कुमार) (जाज" माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद"य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER "दनांक Dated /12/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant- Rebati Dandapat W/O:- Priyaranjan Dandapat, Ward No:- 04, Mandir Pada, Nuapada, 766105
""थ" / The Respondent- ITO, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, (
