SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. ACIT,RANGE-1, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 269/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 June 2025AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity of being heard, while cautioning them to cooperate with the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2018-19 was scrutinized, and the AO added Rs. 55,55,000 received from Kothari Agrotech, treated as sundry creditors, to income as a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-representation, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Restoration of appeal to CIT(A) due to dismissal for non-representation; Taxability of amount shown as sundry creditors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/06/2025Pronounced: 30/06/2025

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 02/01/2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10049339 passed for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 29 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating that the order passed

P a g e 1 | 4 by the ld CIT(A), NFAC dated 2.1.2025 and the appeal against the said order was to be filed within 60 days from the issue of the order. However, as the assessee was not aware about the technical provisions of the law and the income tax matter was looked after the counsel. It is stated that the e-mail address of one of the staff was given in the income tax portal, who could not get through the same and the order passed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC was not in the knowledge of the assessee. When the fact of passing of order of ld CIT(A) was in the knowledge of the assessee, he promptly consulted the counsel to file the appeal. Therefore, there was delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. It is prayed that the delay was not intentional and same may be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation petition.

3.

After considering the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time and hence, we condone the delay of 29 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 17.10.2018 for the assessment year 2018-19 and the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and in response to the notices, the assessee furnished related documents/details/clarifications/explanations time to time through e-assessment mode. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received Rs.55,55000/- from Kothari Agrotech , which have been shown in assessee’s book as “sundry creditors”. The AO treated the P a g e 2 | 4 same as revenue receipt in nature and added the same to the income of the assessee.

5.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). However, despite various opportunities given to the assessee, there was no representation from the side of the assessee and accordingly, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

We have heard ld Sr. D.R and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. As there was no representation from the side of the assessee before the ld CIT(A), we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld CIT(A), failing which the Ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

P a g e 3 | 4

7.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) Accountant Member VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 30/06/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kunj Road, Raigarh, 496001 2. The Respondent : ACIT, Range- 1, Central Circle, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Asst.Regisxtrar, Itat, cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →