M T C B I P I H TECHNLOGY,BARIPADA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 171/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: 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 35 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with supporting affidavit, stating reasons for the delay were plausible. The revenue did not raise a serious objection.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal should be admitted for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 15/07/2025Pronounced: 15/07/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.11.2024 for assessment year 2019-2020. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 35 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay 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 35 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

1.

3. It was submitted by the ld AR that due to miscommunication the appeal could not be filed in time, therefore, the delay was occurred before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay 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 its claim.

4.

In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. It is also 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. CIT(A), the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. CIT(A) 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 the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to file the petition for condonation

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →