Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order dated 18/06/2024. The appeal was barred by 308 days, but the delay was condoned after the assessee filed an application with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons. The Revenue did not raise any serious objection to the condonation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to a payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable after being barred by 308 days and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
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
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 18/06/2024 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10063/2020-21 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 308 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 308 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is 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. 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.
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 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.2,000/-