ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR
Facts
Multiple appeals were filed by the assessee, Orissa State Co-operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, for various assessment years against the orders of the CIT(A) that dismissed the appeals in limine due to delay. The assessee attributed the delay to staff shortage and the transition to a faceless regime, leading to issues with online notice delivery and verification.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that while delay in filing appeals can be a cause for dismissal, the reasons provided by the assessee, particularly concerning the challenges posed by the faceless regime and staff shortage, constitute sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mst. Katiji & Othrs, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach to condoning delays.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned for adjudication on merit.
Sections Cited
249(3) of the Income Tax Act, Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, 143(3), 271(1)(c), 144, 263, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :
ITA No.496/CTK/2025 and ITA No.498/CTK/2025 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 5.8.2025 passed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10315114 and Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10314179 for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, in the matter of assessment year 143(3) of the Act.
2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) 2. ITA No.497/CTK/2025 and ITA No.499/CTK/2025 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 5.8.2025 passed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10315360 and Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10314180 for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, in the matter of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. ITA No.500/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10291984 for the assessment year 2016-17 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 263 of the Act. 4. ITA No.501/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10253/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18 in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. 5. ITA No.502/CTK/2025 and ITA No.503/CTK/2025 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 8.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2019-20/10206044 for the assessment year 2020-2021 in the matter of assessment year 143(3) of the Act and order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal no.NFAC/2019-20/10293885 for the assessment year 2020-21 n the matter of penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. 6. ITA No.504/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2021-22/10384315 for the assessment year 2022-23 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 7. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
3 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) 8. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 9. Ld AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in promotion of handicrafts and handloom of Odisha working under the administrative control of Handlooms, Textiles and handicrafts Department of Govt. of Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A) in all the appeals. Such delay has not been condoned by the ld.CIT(A), and all the appeals were dismissed being time barred. Ld AR submitted that the assesse being a government of orisssa undertaking, due to staff shortage, there were delays in filing the appeal. He submitted that the delay in filing of appeals before ld CIT(A) was beyond the control of the assessee and such delay should be condoned and the appeals may be restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh consideration. 10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference in the orders of the ld CIT(A) is required. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. It is observed that the common issue involved in all the appeals is, whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) deserves to be condoned and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. We observe that there
4 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) were delays in the respective assessment years in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) as follows:
Assessment year Delay quantum/penalty (u/s) 2014-15 712 u/s./143(3) 2014-15 692 271(1)(c) 2015-16 705 143(3) 2015-16 685 271(1)(C) 2016-17 515 263 2020-21 109 143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144
In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee in the covid-19 pandemic, the appeals could not be filed in due time, for which, there were delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A). At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that due to staff shortage, the verification of income tax portal was made. It was also submitted that the delay is attributable to online compliance of faceless regime. 13. With the assistance of ld AR and ld Sr DR, we have gone through the reasons stated in the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their
5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that the expression is to be used liberally. Reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, (1987) 167 ITR 41 (SC), wherein, it has been held as under: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 14. It is sufficed to say that the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice- oriented approach. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the assessee runs a serious risk. In the instant case, the delay was attributable specifically due to faceless regime as the notices were sent through
6 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) online only. Due to some reasons or other, the notice of hearing was not in the knowledge of the assessee, as stated in the condonation petition. 15. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the assessee in its averments has made out a clear case that there was sufficient cause being its control prevented from filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) in time. The assessee is diligent in its responsibility as the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal against the orders of the ld CIT(A). We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) in all these assessment years under consideration and set aside the issues to the file of the ld CIT(A) as he has not applied his mind on facts on the merit of the issues. Therefore, we remit the issues to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be liberty to raise any plea on merit for all the appeals. 16. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 1 /12/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (राजेश कुमार) (जाज� माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER �दनांक Dated 01/12/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
7 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- Orissa State Co- operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited., Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT , Bhubaneswar 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Assistant Registrar आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
