BATAKRUSHNA PRATIHARI THROUGH BENEFICIARY GITA PARTIHARI,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI WARD, PURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 283/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 94 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 94 days. The delay occurred because the assessee first filed a petition under Section 154 of the Act, which was rejected by the CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had not provided required documents to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the issues should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) RL REDDY(KZ) RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03/07/2025Pronounced: 03/07/2025

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 21/11/2024 21/11/2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar- -2/10399/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017 2017-18.

P a g e 1 | 3

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, a petition is filed by ld AR of the assessee requesting the Tribunal to dispose of the case on merits. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing ld Sr DR.

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 94 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating that on receipt of appellate order and finding certain mistakes as apparent on its face, instead of preferring appeal before the Tribunal, moved ld CIT(A) through petition u/s.154 of the act after a period of 19 days from the date of receipt of original order. However, the petition u/s.154 of the Act was rejected by the ld CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which has resulted delay of 94 days. It was prayed that due to reason, there was delay in filing the appeal and the delay be condoned.

3.

After perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time before the Tribunal, therefore, we condone the delay of 94 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

We have heard ld Sr Dr. It is noticed from the order of the ld CIT(A) that since the 4. appellant has not provided the required documents in support of the claim, ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Similarly, the assessee is directed to furnish all the requisite documentary evidence before

P a g e 2 | 3 the ld CIT(A), failing which, ld CIT(A) is at liberty to finalise the set aside proceedings as per law.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 03/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →