MRTC INDIA PVT LTD,PURI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 575/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for the assessee to represent their case, but the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 143 days. The assessee had filed a condonation petition with supporting affidavit, which was found to be plausible. The Revenue did not raise any serious objection to the condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the matter can be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after failure of the assessee to provide evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14) MRTC India Pvt Ltd., Ground floor, Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nabakalebar Road, Puri-752002 Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar PAN No. : (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) .. (��यथ� / Respondent) �नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 4 /12/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 4 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.3.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14728/2019-20 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 143 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

4.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued to the assessee. He submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld Sr DR did not object to the request of the assessee.

5.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that despite the issue pending more than 5 years before the ld CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish any evidence or upload any documents in the portal.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT (A) has afforded six opportunities to represent the case with documentary evidence, however, the assessee did not respond to the notices. Considering entire facts of the case, we find that since the assessee had failed to produce relevant documents to substantiate his contentions, the CIT(A) had no other option but to dismiss the appeal. The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences to substantiate the claim. In view of above, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hering to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to be deposited with ITAT Bar Association and the receipt of the same be furnished before the ld CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →