Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 33 days. The assessee had requested condonation of delay, providing an affidavit with reasons that were deemed plausible and not false. The Revenue did not object to the condonation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated its claim before the lower authorities due to a lack of opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case and evidence before the Assessing Officer, despite the delay in filing the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 33(1) 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
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) M/s Binapani Iron Store, Vs ITO Ward-1, Berhampur At: Gate Bazar, PO/PS:Aska Road Dist : Berhampur-760001 PAN No. : AAYFM 2901 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order, dated 27.02.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-2018.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for 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, delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved in this appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate his claim.
In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not produced any evidence either before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that looking to the non- cooperative attitude of the assessee, a reasonable cost deserves to be levied.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents neither before the ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings nor before the ld. AO in assessment proceedings. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in this appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-