DAMODAR DEHURY,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR WARD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal considered the rival submissions and the inability of the assessee to produce documents before the lower authorities. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the tribunal found it necessary to restore the issues to the AO for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was filed belatedly by 185 days. The assessee provided medical documents to support the delay, which were considered by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee was liable for condonation of delay? Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents submitted by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 07/04/2025Pronounced: 07/04/2025

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 22.04.2024, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064258728(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

On perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 185 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with medical documents. Considering the ailments suffered by the assessee as has been stated in the application, which has also been supported by medical prescriptions, we condone the delay of 185 days and appeal is heard finally.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →