Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals, ITA No.392/CTK/2025 and ITA No.393/CTK/2025, which were barred by 69 and 220 days respectively. The assessee sought condonation of delay, stating sufficient reasons.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting both appeals for hearing. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The appeals were barred by limitation, and the assessee sought condonation of delay. The primary issue was whether the appeals could be admitted for hearing and adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act
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 :
has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-2016.
13.09.2024 passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram for the assessment year 2016-2017.
Out of these two appeals, is barred by 69 days and 220 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit in both the appeals for respective delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay in filing both the appeals appeal by the assessee is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for hearing.
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. CIT(A) 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.
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).
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 before the ld. CIT(A) in appellate 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. CIT(A) by restoring the issues in both the appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard for both the years