BINAPANI SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 13/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the reasons provided were plausible and the Sr. DR did not object. The order of the PCIT passed under Section 263 was set aside, and the issues were restored for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the PCIT, which was barred by 736 days. The assessee claimed not to have received notices due to lack of computer knowledge, as they deal in broiler chicken. The PCIT had issued notices online.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the order passed under Section 263 is sustainable when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices due to lack of computer access.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 22/09/2025Pronounced: 22/09/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. PCIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated 31/12/2021 for the assessment year 2017- 2018. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 736 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed 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 736 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has not received any notices issued by the ld. Pr.CIT. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent its case before the ld. Pr.CIT.

4.

In reply, ld.CIT-DR did not raise any objection in granting another opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the ld. Pr.CIT.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the para 4.1 of the order of the ld. PCIT shows that two notices have been issued through online system. It is noticed that the assessee has not responded to the same. It is also alleged that the assesse is not aware of the computer system. It was submitted that the assessee is a dealer of broiler chicken and he has no computer to operate. This being so, in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. Pr.CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act is set aside and the issues are restored to the ld. Pr.CIT for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

6.

Here, we may also mention that, in the event the assessee does respond to the notice issued through ITBA Portal, it would be worthwhile for the concerned authority to issue at least one physical notice, so that principle of natural justice are fully met. This is because in the huge majority of the population in the country, the number of people who have computers are limited and knowledge of computers far more limited. A plausible claim that the assessee being a dealer in broiler chicken, he would obviously not having any computer in the slaughter house.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →