DAMODAR DEHURY,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR WARD
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.
Held
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.
Key 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?
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (implied from the context of appeal proceedings and restoration to AO)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
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.
2
It was submitted by the ld AR that the AO has made additions without considering the relevant documents produced by the assessee. It was also submitted that those documents were also placed before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was, thus, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue afresh enabling the assessee to file the relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the ld. AO.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the assessee has already shown his inability to produce the documents as required by the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, however, the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not justifying the claim.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance has been made by the assessee. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to 3 the file of the ld. AO for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2025. (राजेश कुमार) (जाजज माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ददनाांक Dated 07/04/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT,
Cuttack 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(
