Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-2018, with a delay of 236 days. The assessee could not furnish documentary evidence to the AO during assessment proceedings and also failed to produce any evidence before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the plausible reasons provided by the assessee and the revenue not disputing it. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunities to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be admitted despite a significant delay and lack of documentary evidence, and if the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 237
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 : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi dated 24/10/2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 236 days in filing the appeal, for which the assesee has filed condonation of delay petition. The revenue has not disputed for condoning the delay. As the reasons given by the assesee are found to be plausible, consequently, the delay of 236 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was the submission that the during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee certain details regarding its claim, however, the assessee could not submit the documentary evidence before the AO. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) has filed statement of facts along with grounds of appeal
1. but the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case and substantiate its claim before the AO.
4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), clearly shows that the assessee could not produce any evidences to substantiate its claim. As no compliance has been made before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings, nor the assessee could submit any documentary evidences regarding his claim before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunities of being heard, subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Secor-1, CDA, Cuttack, Odisha- 7453014 within 60 days from the date of this order and production of the evidence of such payment shall be made within the specified time before the ld. AO at the time of first hearing. If the assessee does not make the payment within in the stipulated time or in the respect of the specified amount, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.