ORISSA ROAD SAFETY SOCIETY,CUTTACK vs. ITO EXEMPTION,CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Shri Natabar Panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B represented on behalf of the Revenue.

The appeals of the assessee in & 109/CTK/2025 are time barred by 45 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is plausible reason to condone the delay and the delay of filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Learned AR that the assessee had been unable to appear before the Learned CIT (A) as the assessee had not received the hearing notices. It was a submission that the assessee is a society funded by the government and run by the

In reply, the Learned Senior DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was a submission that the assessee does not have registration under Section 12A of the Act and therefore, the assessee at the present moment is liable to be assessed only as an AOP. It was the submission that it was the assessee’s duty to represent its case before the Learned CIT(A) and the assessee having failed to do so, further opportunity should not be granted.

We have heard the rival consideration. A perusal of the facts of the present case, clearly show that the assessee’s petition against the non- granting of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, is pending before the Honourable Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa. The registration under Section 12A will have a substantial bearing on the facts of the present case. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Learned AO for re-

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions No. 1 to 5/CTK/2025. As we have already disposed off the appeals of the assessee by restoring the issues to the file of the AO, the Stay Petitions filed by the assessee become infructuous and are dismissed as infructuous.