KALI PRASANNA PARIDA,PARADEEP vs. ITO, WARD, PARADEEP, PARADEEP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 395/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 August 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 of 404 days, admitting the appeal for hearing. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer (AO) by restoring the issues to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 20/03/2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal was barred by 404 days, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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

Hearing: 13/08/2025Pronounced: 13/08/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20/03/2024 passed in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10166159 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 404 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 404 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 the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate his claim.

4.

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.

5.

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 the 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/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →